pageok
pageok
pageok
Fraudulent Registrations No Threat:

The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports on the investigation into fraudulent and duplicate voter registrations submitted by ACORN, and notes that neither Democrats nor Republicans on the county's election board believes the bad registrations will compromise the election's results.

Even as Cuyahoga County digs deeper into possible fraud by a voter-registration group, election board members from both political parties maintain that any problems uncovered will not compromise the presidential election.

Board members say proof of voter-registration fraud does not mean illegal ballots will be cast on Nov. 4.

They said computer databases flag people who try to register multiple times, and Ohio voter identification laws exclude people from casting regular ballots when the board has not verified residency.

Still, the board is investigating suspicious registration cards submitted by ACORN, a national group that tries to register low- and moderate-income voters. . . .

The Cuyahoga County Republican Party has posted a news story about the local investigation of ACORN. But even Chairman Rob Frost, the second Republican member on the county's election board, said the potentially fraudulent registration cards do not jeopardize the fairness of the election.

"No, I don't have fear because we have a handle on problems caused by ACORN," he said.

jbn (mail):

Still, the board is investigating suspicious registration cards submitted by ACORN, a national group that tries to register low- and moderate-income voters. . . .

Instead of nibbling around the edges of this problem, why don't we just institute a significant poll tax which would make it too expensive for these so-called poor people to vote?
10.11.2008 10:05pm
CDR D (mail):
Why not at least make them show an ID Card?

Fer crying out loud.

I show an ID card when I go to the polling place every time. They don't require it, they don't ask for it. They don't like it. In fact, amazingly, they try to wave it away.

But I shove it in their faces, and I tell them if they don't like it, they can goddam lump it.
10.11.2008 10:16pm
A.W. (mail):
Jbn

You would have to repeal an amendment to the constitution.

But my belief is we should require ID's at every stage, photo ID's, and we should keep picture on file of everyone who does.

Oh, and paying people to register others should be absolutely banned.
10.11.2008 10:16pm
Oren:

Instead of nibbling around the edges of this problem, why don't we just institute a significant poll tax which would make it too expensive for these so-called poor people to vote?
While we are at it, lets exclude investment bankers and military contractors/personnel from voting too -- they suck more money out of the budget than all the poor people combined.


But even Chairman Rob Frost, the second Republican member on the county's election board, said the potentially fraudulent registration cards do not jeopardize the fairness of the election. "No, I don't have fear because we have a handle on problems caused by ACORN," he said.

They better not -- any voting system that can't handle such a trivial problem as removing duplicate/unverified registrations is a joke. I had always assumed that such simple things were easily taken care of on the back end.

It's ACORN getting screwed paying their workers $1 (or whatever, I don't know) per registration only to have the computer spit most of them back out.
10.11.2008 10:17pm
Oren:

But my belief is we should require ID's at every stage, photo ID's, and we should keep picture on file of everyone who does.

Except the Amish, of course. Religious freedom and all that.
10.11.2008 10:20pm
loki13 (mail):
I'm going to make my two quick points before the crazies get here (yes, I'm thinking of you, Mac):

1. I respect the GOP members of the county election board for treating this as the non-issue that it is, instead of trying to score cheap political points. Well played.

2. There is a difference between probelms with voter-registration and voter fraud. To give you two examples:

If TFHG (Tin Foil Hat Group) registers Daf E. Duck and Mr. Duck never votes, there is no voter fraud.

If TFHG register John Q. Public 500 times because their members kept recanvassing and they submitted his name multiple times, and JQP votes once, there is no fraud.

And finally, the last two things to keep in mind:

1. Despite making 'voter fraud' a huge DOJ priority for the entirety of their administration, it just doesn't really exist (not to say it doesn't ever happen, but it's neither major nor systemic).

2. The majority of voter fraud that does occur happens through absentee ballots, but that is never investigated by the current administration as those ballots trends GOP.

Anyway, I recommend looking at this.

Okay, the crazies can commence.
10.11.2008 10:26pm
glenstein (mail) (www):

why don't we just institute a significant poll tax which would make it too expensive for these so-called poor people to vote?


uh, things being the way they are, I'm pretty sure that would push away actual poor people as well.
10.11.2008 10:37pm
SenatorX (mail):
I haven't followed this and am pretty ignorant about the whole thing. Can someone tell me why ACORN would be doing this if there was no benefit?
10.11.2008 11:05pm
jbn (mail):

I haven't followed this and am pretty ignorant about the whole thing. Can someone tell me why ACORN would be doing this if there was no benefit?

From what I've read, they're some commie outfit that thinks that democracy works best when more citizens vote.
10.11.2008 11:15pm
jccamp (mail):
loki 13 -

Although I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusions, I think what is factual is that no one really knows the extent of fraudulent voting - as opposed to fraudulent registration. There are no studies showing significant fraudulent voting, because there are no credible studies at all.

I also don't know if even small numbers of voting fraud should be considered insignificant. If public confidence in the election process is shaky, then the fraud is significant. It may not influence elections via enough bogus ballots to change the results, but the lack of confidence is significant in and of itself. I'm sure everyone has heard the apocryphal stories of JFK carrying Illinois in 1960 via voter fraud in Chicago. We certainly don't need this kind of thing repeating itself.

So far, it seems that any attempt to require some form of identification or verification is automatically equated to, per se, bias against the poor and/or minorities. I'm always suspicious of attempts to cloak something in "bigotry" instead of engaging in some useful dialogue to settle things.

People generally need some form of identification to buy cigarettes or alcohol, guns, dog licenses, etc. Is it unreasonable that people who wish to vote shouldn't have to meet some similar and innocuous standards of proof of identity?

I don't see why this has to be a partisan issue. If several hundred investment bankers all showed up and registered as "J P Morgan" with bogus addresses, I would suggest disallowing their registrations too.
10.11.2008 11:21pm
jccamp (mail):
jbn -

You're being too subtle...
10.11.2008 11:26pm
SenatorX (mail):
I haven't followed this and am pretty ignorant about the whole thing. Can someone tell me why ACORN would be doing this if there was no benefit?

From what I've read, they're some commie outfit that thinks that democracy works best when more citizens vote.


I suppose your answer means you are incapable of an honest answer but I am asking about the reports of getting people to register multiple times. If these all get filtered out at the actual voting then I don't understand why they would do this unless there was some other benefit that I'm not seeing.
10.11.2008 11:32pm
Dr. Weevil (mail) (www):
Voter fraud "just doesn't really exist" (loki13)? There is good reason to believe that voter fraud put Christine Gregoire in the Washington state governor's mansion for the last four years, though Dino Rossi almost certainly got more legal votes. See this Wall Street Journal article from January 2005 for some examples of the kind of fraud that was found -- votes far more numerous than Gregoire's 129-vote margin.
10.11.2008 11:33pm
Syd Henderson:

SenatorX (mail):
I haven't followed this and am pretty ignorant about the whole thing. Can someone tell me why ACORN would be doing this if there was no benefit?


In at least one case, a woman was getting paid for how many voters she registered, so she made some up. In other words, it was an individual sinning, not the organization.
10.11.2008 11:34pm
jccamp (mail):
"If these all get filtered out at the actual voting ..."

That's part of the problem, or at least the perception...do they really get filtered out or not.

It may just be that the individuals creating the multiple or patently false ( e.g., sports team rosters, Jed Clampett, etc) are paid per registration, so all they care about is volume. But the cynic would argue that Acorn should be making some minimal effort to discourage the fraudulent registrations, especially the ones that are so obviously bogus. Sine there appears to be, at the least, an institutional tolerance for some poetic license in new registrations by Acorn, I guess you asked a to-the-point question. Who benefits?

Maybe some of Acorn's funding is predicated on registration numbers. That, I don't know.
10.11.2008 11:42pm
trad and anon:
I haven't followed this and am pretty ignorant about the whole thing. Can someone tell me why ACORN would be doing this if there was no benefit?
ACORN is paying people to register other people to vote. I think they're workers are paid by the hour, but there's no good way to monitor whether they're actually working, so some of them slack off and make up stuff on the forms to make it look like they were working. Plus you have the people registering to vote who write incorrect things on the forms because they're stupid or find it funny.

ACORN is required by law to turn in all of the voter registration forms they receive, whether they're obviously fraudulent or not. Otherwise groups could get people to fill out registration forms and only hand in those of people likely to vote the way they want, resulting in lots of people who thought they were registered showing up at the polls and being told they can't vote. I believe ACORN actually goes over the forms and bundles the suspicious ones separately to make things easier for the people processing the registrations, because they want all their registrations processed.
10.11.2008 11:43pm
Brooklynite (www):
Oh, and paying people to register others should be absolutely banned.

Why?
10.11.2008 11:43pm
Brooklynite (www):
I am asking about the reports of getting people to register multiple times. If these all get filtered out at the actual voting then I don't understand why they would do this unless there was some other benefit that I'm not seeing.

ACORN pays people to do registration work, and they pay them on the basis of the number of reg cards they return. The people who fill out fraudulent cards are bilking ACORN, not seeking to influence the election.
10.11.2008 11:44pm
trad and anon:
It may just be that the individuals creating the multiple or patently false ( e.g., sports team rosters, Jed Clampett, etc) are paid per registration, so all they care about is volume. But the cynic would argue that Acorn should be making some minimal effort to discourage the fraudulent registrations, especially the ones that are so obviously bogus. Sine there appears to be, at the least, an institutional tolerance for some poetic license in new registrations by Acorn, I guess you asked a to-the-point question. Who benefits?
To this, I say: never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity.
10.11.2008 11:45pm
Brooklynite (www):
But the cynic would argue that Acorn should be making some minimal effort to discourage the fraudulent registrations, especially the ones that are so obviously bogus.

What makes you think they don't? They do act against the fraudulent registration forms, but they can't just throw them in the trash at their own discretion. You don't want a voter-reg organization deciding which registrations to put through and which ones to toss out, do you?
10.11.2008 11:46pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
The arguments against there being voter fraud run along the lines: "We don't see any, therefore there is none" But that depends on how hard you look. By using sampling techniques we can get estimate how many registrations are fraudulent. It wouldn't even be all that expensive. Then after the election take a random sample of the people who are on record as having voted and check them out. If the study shows enough fraud to have influenced the outcome, then the election should be voided.

In any case I don't see why we should not require identification before someone votes. And no I don't believe that crap about this being a burden on a large number of people. I can't exercise my Second Amendment right in CA without proper identification can I?
10.11.2008 11:49pm
jccamp (mail):
BTW, there is some fairly credible argument that Hillary Clinton actually won the Democratic primaries, but lost only where there were caucuses that Obama won through fraud and manipulation. I have seen at least 2 serious reports to this effect, but of course, now that the nomination process is over, they have been removed from the (previously) HRC-leaning but DNP-friendly sites.

If one could make a reasonable argument that Sen Obama is the nominee because of fraud and systematic abuse of the caucus process, it is not too great a leap worry about the general election as well.
10.11.2008 11:50pm
jccamp (mail):
Trad &A -

"I believe ACORN actually goes over the forms and bundles the suspicious ones separately to make things easier for the people processing the registrations, because they want all their registrations processed."

I didn't know this. If you're right, it would change my perception of Acorn's practices. I would still suspect that Acorn, as an organization, somehow receives funding tied to new voter registrations as a number.
10.11.2008 11:57pm
jbn (mail):


If one could make a reasonable argument that Sen Obama is the nominee because of fraud and systematic abuse of the caucus process, it is not too great a leap worry about the general election as well.

Indeed. Something just doesn't smell right here. I don't see how Americans could vote for Barack HUSSEIN Obama!!!
10.11.2008 11:57pm
kdonovan:


But even Chairman Rob Frost, the second Republican member on the county's election board, said the potentially fraudulent registration cards do not jeopardize the fairness of the election. "No, I don't have fear because we have a handle on problems caused by ACORN," he said.


They better not -- any voting system that can't handle such a trivial problem as removing duplicate/unverified registrations is a joke. I had always assumed that such simple things were easily taken care of on the back end.


Have you ever seen or used a voterfile? They are generally a mess with individual people registered multiple times at different addresses or incorrect or nonexistent addresses, often with other missing or incorrect data. In my experience 30%+ of the the records on a voterfile are not real people who currently live at the given address. (Though this varies greatly county by county - some are good about keeping theirs clean and up to date, most are not.) They are among the lowest quality databases of individuals out there.

Keep in mind that the people who maintain them have virtually no incentive to keep them in good shape (other than pride). Purging the rolls irritates infrequent voters and costs money and time.
10.11.2008 11:59pm
jccamp (mail):
jbn -

"I don't see how Americans could vote for Barack HUSSEIN Obama!!!"

No, you're missing the point. it's not that Americans couldn't vote for Sen Obama, it's the opposite, that they voted again and again...
10.12.2008 12:02am
PC:
Indeed. Something just doesn't smell right here. I don't see how Americans could vote for Barack HUSSEIN Obama!!!

It is worse than that. Apparently Barack HUSSEIN Obama has also corrupted all of the pollsters. Does his evil know no bounds?
10.12.2008 12:03am
jccamp (mail):
I agree with PC's point, that an Obama walk-off is in progress. Unless the Obama campaign implodes, or we find out he is secretly married to Michael Jackson or something, I think we're looking at President-elect Obama.

Considering the McCain team's management of their own campaign, rightly so I think.
10.12.2008 12:08am
fullerene:

I think what is factual is that no one really knows the extent of fraudulent voting - as opposed to fraudulent registration. There are no studies showing significant fraudulent voting, because there are no credible studies at all.


This is probably right, but there are still good reasons to doubt that voter fraud is widespread. Individual ineligble voters have too much to lose and very little to gain by intentionally voting illegally. If voting is deeply irrational, imagine just how irrational it becomes if you could go to jail or be deported for doing it.

Candidates themselves would probably be more interested in orchestrating voter fraud, but rounding up ineligible voters to pad your total is the least efficient way of tilting an election. It would take many hundreds or thousands of people who, despite being ineligible to vote, are organized and disciplined enough to carryout instructions without telling anyone outside of the grand conspiracy of its existence. Is this really likely when you could corrupt a handful of pollworkers and accomplish much more? Targeting the vote count itself is certainly very risky, but it gives you much more control and involves many fewer people. I suspect this is why all election fraud orchestrated by politicians has centered on controlling the count and not on convincing bums to vote eight times for the right guy.
10.12.2008 12:08am
fullerene:

No, you're missing the point. it's not that Americans couldn't vote for Sen Obama, it's the opposite, that they voted again and again...


Once you vote black, you never go back.
10.12.2008 12:10am
Tavi:
jccamp and others -- to follow on trad &anon's comment, see this memo from ACORN. The pertinent parts:


Fact: ACORN has implemented the most sophisticated quality-control system in the voter engagement field, but in almost every state we are required to turn in ALL completed applications, even the ones we know to be problematic.

Fact: ACORN flags incomplete, problem, or suspicious cards when we turn them in, but these warnings are often ignored by election officials. Often these same officials then come back weeks or months later and accuse us of deliberately turning in phony cards.

Fact: Our canvassers are paid by the hour, not by the card, so there is NO incentive for them to falsify cards. ACORN has a zero-tolerance policy for deliberately falsifying registrations, and in the relatively rare cases where our internal quality controls have identified this happening we have fired the workers involved and turned them in to election officials and law-enforcement.

Fact: No charges have ever been brought against ACORN itself. Convictions against individual former ACORN workers have been accomplished with our full cooperation, using the evidence obtained through our quality control and verification processes.
10.12.2008 12:13am
SenatorX (mail):
Ahh financial incentives for the ones getting people to register, I can see that. So from this alone we wouldn’t be able to say the intention is voter fraud and would have to look for additional data elsewhere to support that claim. If they have to submit all registrations (and I agree that makes sense) then I suppose it could just be a matter of internal “quality control” at ACORN.

I would think though that if the burden of sorting the fraudulent from the accurate registrations falls on the state there would be some kind of regulation that tries to make ACORN (and others who do this sort of thing) maintain some degree of control over the quality of the voter registrations. Is there something like this? I would imagine something like if X percentage of voter registrations coming from your group exceed Y percentage of allowable fraudulent registrations you suffer a penalty. If there isn’t any sort of incentive to validate the registrations then I completely understand why this is happening.

Though I guess I also would wonder why ACORN wouldn’t maintain their own internal quality control since they are paying these people. Maybe they are getting paid by someone for total registered voters and it’s that payee’s waste of money? Individuals registering voters scamming ACORN and ACORN scamming their funders?
10.12.2008 12:16am
SenatorX (mail):
Fact: Our canvassers are paid by the hour, not by the card, so there is NO incentive for them to falsify cards. ACORN has a zero-tolerance policy for deliberately falsifying registrations, and in the relatively rare cases where our internal quality controls have identified this happening we have fired the workers involved and turned them in to election officials and law-enforcement.

Well hrmmm. Back to why they do it then.
10.12.2008 12:21am
MarkField (mail):

I didn't know this. If you're right, it would change my perception of Acorn's practices.


I saw one news article which reported that ACORN submitted separate piles to the registrars, one of which was specifically identified as containing likely improper registrations. The registrars confirmed that.
10.12.2008 12:26am
jccamp (mail):
Tavi -

Thanks for the info, although I doubt Acorn would malign itself on this issue. For instance, the memo says "there is virtually no chance anyone would be able to vote fraudulently..."

I would refer one to the previously cited WSJ story on Washington state. In that closely matched election, 1,200 more votes were counted than people voted. Pretty good trick. Or from the same story..."the fact that in Precinct 1823 in downtown Seattle, 527, or 70%, of the 763 registered voters used 500 Fourth Avenue--the King County administration building--as their residential address. A full 61% of the precinct's voters only registered in the last year, and nearly all of them "live" at 500 Fourth Avenue."

The margin of victory in the governor's race in that election was 129 votes. So fraud could make a difference. Ask a Democrat who won Florida in 2000.

The truth probably lies between the poles. But it's informative to read Acorn's take on the issue. Hard to believe but I don't think I'd see that on Fox News.
10.12.2008 12:31am
loki13 (mail):
jccamp-

Since you seem to be interested in reasoned discourse, I recommend first looking at the link I provided for a quick overview.

The issue that a person like me sees is not with voter fraud. It is with 'voter fraud'. There's a difference in my mind.

Voter fraud is a voter fraudulently voting, for example, voting more than once, or voting in a state you do not reside.

'Voter fraud' is a largely GOP-created myth which is destroying public confidence in our political system, and it really p1sses me off. As someone who has been working at poll monitoring within my state (given my legal experience) I am *ANGRY* at the voter suppression that is being done by one party. I think that a party that relies on voter suppression and divisiveness is bad for our country; for our country to succeed, we need two healthy strong parties that encourage people to participate and drive voter turnout by appealing to people with distinct and different visions of what is best for America.

IOW, there is no real attempt to deal with voter fraud. If there was, the first place to crack down would be absentee ballots. Instead, 'voter fraud' is used as a justification for laws that allow for voter suppression. I would have no problem with some sort of identity check, provided that the government would provide identification for free for those that did not have drivers' license, and with a provision for provisional ballots for the inevitable screwups that occur on election day.

We have enough trouble getting people to vote. I think it is truly shameful that we erect barriers for the *lawful* exercise of any citizen's right to vote.
10.12.2008 12:33am
Brooklynite (www):
in Precinct 1823 in downtown Seattle, 527, or 70%, of the 763 registered voters used 500 Fourth Avenue--the King County administration building--as their residential address

Those are homeless people, registering as state law mandates they do. Here's the relevant section of the code:

WAC 434-208-100 Registering to vote -- Nontraditional address. No person registering to vote, who meets all the qualifications of a registered voter in the state of Washington, shall be disqualified because of a nontraditional physical address being used as a residence address. Nontraditional addresses may include shelters, parks or other identifiable locations which the voter deems to be his/her residence. Voters using such an address will be registered and precincted based on the location provided. Voters without a traditional address will be registered at the county courthouse, city hall or other public building near the area that the voter considers his/her residence. Registering at a nontraditional address will not disqualify a voter from requesting ongoing absentee voter status provided the voter designates a valid mailing address.
10.12.2008 12:48am
fullerene:

The margin of victory in the governor's race in that election was 129 votes. So fraud could make a difference. Ask a Democrat who won Florida in 2000.


We know that now, but before each election the only thing we knew was that the election would be close. Based on that alone, it does not seem sensible or likely that someone risked a prison sentence to increase his preferred candidates chance of winning by a miniscule factor--even more so when you consider just how inefficient convincing the homeless or day laborers to vote illegally actually is.
10.12.2008 12:57am
Dr. Weevil (mail) (www):
Way to selectively quote the article I linked, Brooklynite. Are all the people registered at 500 Fourth Avenue homeless? Apparently not. As the WSJ article specifically says:

"Not all of the voters at the county building are homeless or hard to find. A noted local judge and her husband have been registered at the county building for years. When I called her to ask why, she became flustered and said it was because of security concerns, specifically because 'the Mexican mafia are out to get me.' When I pointed out that her home address and phone number were easily found on the Internet and in property records, she ended the conversation by refusing to answer a question about whether she had improperly voted for state legislative candidates who would represent the county building but not her residence."

That's not the same as double voting, but it appears that even a "noted local judge" is voting illegally in the wrong district. And the linked article had a lot of other examples of hanky-panky, most of it in heavily-Democratic King County.
10.12.2008 12:59am
Dr. Weevil (mail) (www):
loki13:

The fact that absentee ballots trend Republican does not in any way show that fraudulent absentee ballots trend Republican. In 1982 I was urged to vote in two different states in the same election by a Democratic canvasser who was quite offended when I told him that would be illegal and he ought to be ashamed of himself. Full story (not very long) here.
10.12.2008 1:06am
jccamp (mail):
Actually, I read the article before posting a reply. It is somewhat presumptuous of you to assume that I didn't. Did you read the reference to the WSJ story? Or has Slate become more credible that the Wall Street Journal, so you had no need? Genuine fraud does exist. Evidently, no one really knows the magnitude. Including you or me.

As for absentee ballots, much of the current spitting match in Ohio derives from the Republican party trying to limit same-day registration and absentee voting. For either party to wrap themselves in the Constitution on this issue seems somewhat disingenuous.

"a largely GOP-created myth which is destroying public confidence in our political system..." I would again ask what exactly many Democrats believe about Florida in 2000. Or is that not a myth, so it doesn't count?

And I'll repeat myself. Why is it "voter suppression" to ask for some means of identifying or verifying voter eligibility? I was under the impression that in Ohio (for instance), the fees for photo ID had been removed, so there is no financial burden imposed. Yet, some still oppose any attempts to qualify or verify. Why is that? The latest arguments I saw is that requiring poor people to travel to some government office for a photograph is an imposition, and that poor people don't have birth certificates or other proof of identify. Both the Slate author and you say that requiring proof of identity is no problem. How would you respond to the assertions above about why the poor can't get a free government ID card?

Again, referring to Ohio, a large (double digit) percentage of newly registered voters could not be found at the address they provided. Should we believe that something like 25% (or 15% or what ever it was) of newly registered voters also moved within 2 weeks of registering? And left no forwarding address? Or maybe that the same portion were actually homeless, and apparently made up addresses?

If you think that Republicans are using this issue to bludgeon the Dems, then maybe illuminating the truth or falsity of people voting fraudulently would be a good thing. So far, all I see is polemics - well, actually I suppose I can't see polemics. But you know what I mean.
10.12.2008 1:06am
NotMyRealName:

[...] there is some fairly credible argument that Hillary Clinton actually won the Democratic primaries, but lost only where there were caucuses that Obama won through fraud and manipulation. I have seen at least 2 serious reports to this effect [...]


Name one. I'm calling baloney on this. I've seen arguments that Clinton lost due to fraud, but none of them were at all credible.

(P.S. I hope you're not thinking of New Hampshire. The early claims of vote fraud in New Hampshire have been thoroughly debunked; those claims were irresponsible, in my opinion, and they turned out to have no grounding in fact.)
10.12.2008 1:12am
Psalm91 (mail):
We have a change in the McCain campaign: It's now noun-verb-Acorn Day 1.

Nice to see the poll tax mentioned; the literacy test will not be far behind. No wonder McCain spoke highly of John Lewis' wisdom. Lewis appears to have a good understanding of the historical antecedents of the current McCain campaign: The Alaska Independence Party following in the footsteps of the American Independent Party.
10.12.2008 1:15am
jccamp (mail):
fullerene -

I'd only suggest this. Until we adopt something like the Iraqi system of putting a thumb print on the ballot, the possibility of actually identifying a person who casts a vote using a fraudulent or fictitious name is probably near zero. We may arrest the canvasser who turned in multiple patently false applications, but trying to determine who walked into a voting precinct and cast a vote, and who provided no form of identification...well, that would be tough. So, probably not much chance of getting caught if you're being paid a few bucks for every vote you managed to consummate.

There may be easier or less risky ways to unlawfully influence elections (voting machines? staff at the elections office?) but that doesn't mean somewhere, someone is trying to do just that by getting people to vote more than once.
10.12.2008 1:21am
jccamp (mail):
NMRN -

Here you go, links straight from a heavily Dem web site.

HERE and HERE

The author "Peniel Cronin is the President &CEO of Global Basics and eNameWiz.com. Cronin holds a B.S. in Accounting from Arizona State University and has 16 years experience as an accountant and Director of Marketing for several SMEs."

there's actually a second report with nearly identical conclusions, written by a mathematician. I'm looking for that one now, but so far, can't find it.
10.12.2008 1:26am
jccamp (mail):
Although I still can't locate the 2nd report, it relied on more anecdotal evidence (if such can be called evidence). It had the same comparisons of actual votes and/or pre-vote polling compared to delegate counts after caucuses.

I read them pre-convention and thought them fleshed out and reasonable. You may not agree, especially since the author is a HRC proponent, but I'm not sure you can fault her methodology. Even if the conclusion can be debated, it's certainly not rubbish.

This is specific that the fault is not only the caucus system itself, but systematic abuse by the Obama campaign.

There was a lot of back-and-forth in the blog archives that these come from. See them for more info, and some claimed 1st person verification of what went on inside the caucuses.
10.12.2008 1:37am
loki13 (mail):
jccamp-

No. You don't understand me, clearly. I think the 'voter fraud' (as opposed to voter fraud) people are just the same as the Diebolt people. Bunch of tinfoil nutjobs. Doesn't matter if you're on the left or the right, when your response to losing elections is to throw doubt on the process in the absence of evidence, not only do you drive up the cost of aluminum wrap for the rest of us, but you actually hurt our country by casting doubt on the integrity of the vote for partisan gain.

As you may have missed, I would have no problem with a sensible identification requirement coupled with provisional ballots. Having actually seen how the process works, I know that 'voter fraud' is a label used to push through laws that end up disenfranchising voters. I think that's wrong; not in the "I'd rather 10 bad votes go in that one voter gets disenfranchised" way; but rather in the, "I want both parties to sell their ideas to the American people and get people to vote for them so we have a robust exchange of ideas, a true popular mandate for the winner, and less creepy conspiracy crud from the loony left / reedonkulous right looney tune brigades."
10.12.2008 1:43am
jccamp (mail):
NMRN -

some more re: caucuses and fraud

HERE

and here's the mathematician I remembered.

HERE

If anything, it may be better written than the first link I posted at 12:26.

JC
10.12.2008 1:43am
Ryan (mail):
SenatorX:


Well hrmmm. Back to why they do it then.


I know! It's like for some craaazy reason, they believe the quality of democracy is improved when more people vote, resulting in a more representative government! They must be making mad cash off of it, otherwise why would they do it, am I right guys?
10.12.2008 1:46am
jccamp (mail):
loki 13 -

Sorry. Didn't mean to jump all over you.

"but you actually hurt our country by casting doubt on the integrity of the vote for partisan gain."

I agree completely. Maybe I'm channeling 2000 again, worrying about wild herds of litigators heading for courthouses left and right, before the polling places even close.
10.12.2008 1:48am
loki13 (mail):
jccamp-

Also, the reason I didn't bother with the John Fund WSJ opinion piece is that, like many readers of the Journal, I have a strict policy:

1. News articles are considered presumptively credible and very informative.

2. Opinion pieces are best used for my friend's bird cage.


As for the slate article, it lays out many opinions I happen to agree with (including a possible ID requirement) along with helpful links.
10.12.2008 1:51am
Libertarian1 (mail):
In medicine when we order lab tests we all understand there will be some errors in the results. Example PSA test for prostate cancer. If the normal standard value is too low many people who have no disease will test positive. If the standard is set too high many people who actually have the disease will test negative. These two are called false positive and false negative. This is not the place to discuss the implications but practically those are the only two possible results. Usually in medicine we deliberately choose to live with false positives rather than allow false negatives.
In voting we face the exact same dilemma. Is it better for 10 fraudulant votes to be cast so as to prevent one legitimate voter from being disenfranchised? Or is it better to prevent voter fraud in casting ballots at the possible cost of denying a legitimate voter.
Here, as in the Indiana voter ID case, the two undesirable but mandatory positions are under discussion. Since frequently the disenfranchised tend to be poor and the illegal voters are the same it seems apparent the political implications overcome dispassionate discussion.
The problem I see is those who strongly support massive ACORN-type voter registration and see very little actual problem of voter fraud defend their case by saying we want every vote to count and every American to have the right to vote. But strangely, these exact same people were in the forefront of trying to block the counting of overseas military votes in 2000 and fought to prevent voter registration by Republicans in Ohio where one box was not checked.

Bottom line. 100% politics and 0% principle.
10.12.2008 1:59am
loki13 (mail):
As an aside, I think there is a reason for the proliferation of election-stealing conspiracy theories on both the left and the right. Today, more so than any time in *modern* history, we live in an age when our news is largely self-selected.

If you're a conservative, you get the forwarded conservative emails, go to conservative blogs, listen to talk radio, and watch Fox News.

If you're a liberal, you get the forwarded liberal emails, go to liberal blogs, listen to NPR, and watch anything but Fox News (that Keith guy on MSNBC, maybe)?

Anyway, the effect of this echo chamber is to reinforce your belief that you, and your side, is completely right and there can't be anyone (or, at least, not that many people) who disagree with you, and those that do are wrong and couldn't possibly convince the majority of voters to their side. Because of this, you are eternally surprised whenever 'your side' loses, and are more prone to believe that somehow 'the other' stole the election.

We are moving to an age where we are all Pauline Kael.
10.12.2008 2:01am
jccamp (mail):
The link I posted at 12:43 includes some very unflattering prose about Acorn, from a variety of writers. The author of the overall report which includes the references to stories about Acorn describes herself as a life long Democrat, "With a Master’s degree in math and fourteen math books under my belt, albeit some of them for first graders"

I suggest it as interesting reading.

link is HERE.
10.12.2008 2:08am
jccamp (mail):
Loki -

Speak for yourself. id' rather be Bulwer-Lytton
10.12.2008 2:12am
jccamp (mail):
well, I'd rather be...not id rather be...although the id is a problem sometimes.
10.12.2008 2:13am
NotMyRealName:
jccamp-

Here you go, links straight from a heavily Dem web site.


That Cronin document does not allege fraud -- let alone provide evidence of fraud in the 2008 primaries of such magnitude as to deny Clinton a rightful victory.

The Cronin document does not allege that Obama manipulated election results to steal an election from Clinton. At most it suggests that the results of caucuses are not representative -- but not that there was an active attempt by Obama to wrongfully manipulate the caucuses.

Moreover the evidence for even this weak claim is unpersuasive: it makes elementary errors of analysis. For instance, it notes that since Obama's vote share in caucuses was significantly higher than his vote share in primaries, and from this concludes that this means that caucuses have distorted the result. This does not follow, because it fails to account for the possible existence of confounding factors. (e.g., maybe states that use caucuses tend to be more urban, and urban voters tended to lean towards Obama; perhaps caucus-states tended to have later election dates, and perhaps Obama did better later in the year as voters came to know more about him; or you can imagine many other possible hypotheses. The point is not that I am proposing these specific hypotheses -- rather, the point is that the burden is on the author to identify possible confounding factors and determine whether they could provide an alternate explanation for the observed data. The author fails to do so, which makes his analysis thoroughly unpersuasive.)

The early claims of election fraud in New Hampshire made the same mistake of overlooking the possibility of confounding factors, and in fact, the actual results were explained by a confounding factor effect rather than by fraud.
10.12.2008 2:14am
David Warner:
Loki13,

"I have a strict policy"

Again with the anti-trickster-God behavior. Did Odin offer you senior partner?

C'mon, Lok, what's the harm in a little Kim Strassel here and there? I mean they let Thomas Frank in, after all...

(Very) Nice Kael line, but I'm unconvinced that the applicable bubble is necessarily a partisan one.
10.12.2008 2:14am
A.W. (mail):
My prediction. Then the democrats will screech that the efforts to prevent voter fraud will violate the rights of the people to vote. God help us if this is a close one. this could get bumpy.
10.12.2008 2:17am
TruthInAdvertising:
As I mentioned in another thread, if we're going to ban people getting paid for registering voters, the same standard should apply to paid petition circulators. All of the arguments used against paid voter registration efforts apply equally to those who circulate petitions. The fact that Republican and conservative groups rely on paid petition circulators for various statewide petition efforts (like anti-affirmative action ballot proposals) helps explain their silence on that issue.
10.12.2008 2:29am
NotMyRealName:
jccamp-

Thanks for the latter two links (to Pacific John's claims and Lynette Long's web pages). I haven't had time to read through them in great detail, but my impression is that they contain a combination of personal anecdotes and statistical analysis. Unfortunately, I don't have the political knowledge that would be needed to evaluate the personal anecdotes or most of their other arguments, so I'm afraid I'm not able to respond substantively. My apologies.

However Long's statistical claims seem to contain the same flaw of ignoring the possibility of confounding factors. For instance, Long writes: "I was stunned by the fact that Obama won thirteen out of fourteen caucuses when he only won eighteen out of thirty-nine primaries, another statistical improbability." This is faulty reasoning, because it ignores the possibility of confounding factors. Moreover, the use of the phrase "statistical impossibility" is inappropriate and leaves me less than impressed with Long's description of the statistics.

I guess the credibility of these allegations is something each person will need to judge for themselves.
10.12.2008 2:35am
loki13 (mail):
David Warner-

If everything I do is a trick, then I perform no tricks. Put another way, all Norse Gods of Deception are Cretans.

That is my treat, and I bid you a good night. The Red Sox just lost; I have not the heart to continue this evening. Friggin' Orange Juice Dome. They should just throw all the Tampa players into that aquarium they have in center field so they can get Steve Irwined....


*ahem* okay. I feel better now. On the plus side, Geaux Gators!
10.12.2008 2:38am
loki13 (mail):
jccamp-

Adding this last note since I saw the thread after my previous post. Th above poster is right; the people are making a basic error; if caucuses were the same as primaries, then it would be easier to a statistical analysis. However, the process of a caucus is different than a primary- while it varies from state to state (from the Iowa arduous night to the Texas 'two-step') as a general rule a caucus victory is helped by a good ground organization and better peer-to-peer networking to encourage others. Obama focused on this. To give you an analogy; the recent US men's decathalon hero was notoriously bad at the last event (400m?). But he racked up so many points in the other events it made up for his poor performance in that event. Someone not understanding how the different events in the decathalon works would make a silly statement like, "Well, clearly he wasn't trying in the 400m because his performance in that event was so much worse every time he competed than the other events." which is an incorrect assertion.

All the statistics can tell you is that Obama performed better during caucuses. Those of us who followed the democratic campaign closely know it was because of a campaign choice to invest in caucus states, and because of the way the campaign operation was run. It would be a similar mistake to attribute Rudy's crash and burn in the GOP campaign to voter fraud because he performed poorly in early states compared to his national average when the truth is well known (he made the choice to put his eggs in one basket- starts with an F, ends with a LORIDA).
10.12.2008 2:47am
Marvin (mail) (www):
These people were able to register and 'cast a ballot' at the same time.
So, Ohio has a load of ballots completed by these people, one of whom has admitted to registering 72 times.

This voter fraud does compromise the the election.
and I think that ALL of these early ballots should be tossed out.
10.12.2008 2:57am
llamasex (mail) (www):
If anyone collects a registration to vote, shouldn't they turn it in and let the quality control happen at the governmental level? I would rather the government ferret out duplicate registrations then have the registering group throw out a legit registration during their check to make sure a voter is legit process.


This would also prevent a democrat/republican voter registration movement from throwing away registrations from the opposite party.
10.12.2008 4:03am
wooga:
There is a very obvious form of fraud that ACORN could be doing - which nobody seems to talk about. Suppose Joe Smith doesn't vote. He's lazy. Acorn Al decides to register Joe Smith to vote - without telling Joe Smith. Acorn Al gets the ballot mailed to an office near Al. Acorn Al then picks up the 'Joe Smith' mailed ballot, and votes as if he was Joe Smith. Joe Smith never knows - since he never tries to vote. Acorn Al can do this again and again (especially if he is in charge of the mail at the county administration building!). Vote early and vote often...

I'm sure this is sort of thing happens all the time. There are a number of documented cases where the fraudster is related to Joe Smith. It only ever gets detected when Joe Smith dies before election day.



BTW, will people please realize that jbn's "poll tax" post was a moby troll effort. Do lefties really think Republicans are that backwards?
10.12.2008 4:28am
EH (mail):
llamasex: Actually what makes this even more of a nonstory is that ACORN themselves submitted the registrations as suspect. They are required to turn in every registration that they receive, and ACORN separated their registrations into three groups: verified, questionable, and probably bad. Repeating, since this explanation has already occurred in this thread, ACORN flagged these themselves, but the gov't is the only one who can officially throw them out.
10.12.2008 4:28am
Bad English:
Again, there is no reason whatsoever for any corrupt middlemen to be involved in this process to begin with. People should be registering directly with the relevant government agency. The very point of ACORN is to corrupt the process. Outlaw that possibility by streamlining the registration process to bypass that corrupt influence.
10.12.2008 8:54am
Glenn W. Bowen (mail):

The Cuyahoga County Republican Party has posted a news story about the local investigation of ACORN. But even Chairman Rob Frost, the second Republican member on the county's election board, said the potentially fraudulent registration cards do not jeopardize the fairness of the election.


Great reporting.

[/sarc]
10.12.2008 9:21am
just me (mail):
I would buy the altruism of ACORN's claims about not intentionally signing people up, if it wasn't for the pressure to sign up 72 times.

I really do believe the problem with ACORN is the payment to sign up registrants. It motivates people to fake it by making up names or opening a telephone book.

But the problems are rampant-they aren't isolated to just a couple of areas, but in state after state after state where ACORN operates. They know they have a problem-perhaps they should take steps to fix things on their end. Maybe not paying workers is a good place to start, or perhaps better supervision of the workers or better training. Either way in the end this looks to be a problem that is deeply rooted in the organization.

However, taking the road of "well it they don't mean to actually vote that way, and we shouldn't worry about registration fraud" is wrong.

Wrong on two parts-when you take the fraud at the registration level lightly, you are going to encourage it. And those with sneakier minds will take advantage of it by actually figuring out ways to engage in actual fraud.

I agree that it is probably more the area of absentee balloting that is the problem-but either way it eventually wouldn't take too much to get criminally creative and engage in voter fraud.

I think the problem with voter fraud itself is that it is difficult to catch much less prosecute. Once Suzie Q. Public has cast her fraudulent ballot and no flags were raised in the process, there is simply no way to investigate or prosecute it, even if you have reason to suspect the ballot was cast fraudulently-no ID is taken, and if the address is fake, you have no way of figuring out who was voting for Suzie much less prosecuting her.

When you turn a blind eye and blow off the fake registrations you essentially give the people who would like to vote fraudulently a way to use the ambivalence about the registration fraud to help their cause.
10.12.2008 9:40am
Brett Bellmore:
I think there's a serious omission in the reasoning here, if anyone thinks that ACORN labeling the suspicious registrations solves the problem: Why do we assume that the people who'd take advantage of fraudulent registrations aren't sometimes elections officials?

Everybody understands that the best position if you want to rob a bank is a job with the bank. Why is it so seldom noted that the best position if you want to steal an election is to be an election official?

Sure, it's important to structure the system so that John Doe, random guy off the street, can't steal a vote. But it's far more important to structure it so that the guys running the elections can't do that. They're the ones in a position to steal votes wholesale, and then cover up the tracks, after all.

And if you're providing them with fraudulent registrations, and relying on them to do something about it, you're making it too easy for them.
10.12.2008 9:42am
agesilaus:
What about USC 1621:

Perjury generally

"in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true;

is guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United States."

BK
10.12.2008 9:49am
p. rich (mail) (www):
Let's get real for a minute. ACORN is an Alinsky-based national community organization tool of the Democratic Party. They don't sign up voters, they sign up Democratic voters - and any warm body will do, or cold body, or 7 year old child. Federal tax dollars (and Obama campaign dollars) are poured into this group because the Dems will benefit by whatever they produce, fradulent or not.

Most of the comments here are a joke, as they implicitly address ACORN as some kind of unbiased voter-friendly bunch just doing their part for democracy and being unfairly maligned. That depiction is pure crap.

There are reasons why Democrats consistently oppose a nationwide requirement to require valid voter identification, a principal one being they benefit from the efforts of ACORN; and that benefit would immediately be reduced by the number of fictitional characters, druggies, street people, illegal immigrants and other flotsam including their paid handlers who have no concept of or belief in an "informed citizenry".
10.12.2008 10:38am
JosephSlater (mail):
My favorite local sports team totally would have won the championship except the other team cheated. And the refs, and really the whole league, were so biased against my team they didn't even do anything about it. In fact, they helped the other team.

This is a well-worn type of complaint. Except you usually don't hear it over three weeks before the game is actually played.
10.12.2008 11:08am
jccamp (mail):
Well, ND lost yesterday, nothing to do with the officials, unless it was those guys who scheduled the game in the first place.

But they lost with grace and style.

Now that Joseph mentions it, can I protest the Southern Cal game now?
10.12.2008 11:38am
MnZ:

in Precinct 1823 in downtown Seattle, 527, or 70%, of the 763 registered voters used 500 Fourth Avenue--the King County administration building--as their residential address

Those are homeless people, registering as state law mandates they do. Here's the relevant section of the code:

WAC 434-208-100 Registering to vote -- Nontraditional address. No person registering to vote, who meets all the qualifications of a registered voter in the state of Washington, shall be disqualified because of a nontraditional physical address being used as a residence address. Nontraditional addresses may include shelters, parks or other identifiable locations which the voter deems to be his/her residence. Voters using such an address will be registered and precincted based on the location provided. Voters without a traditional address will be registered at the county courthouse, city hall or other public building near the area that the voter considers his/her residence. Registering at a nontraditional address will not disqualify a voter from requesting ongoing absentee voter status provided the voter designates a valid mailing address.


Are any of those voters registered at city hall voting by mail?

Many counties in in Washington have switched or will soon switch to entirely vote-by-mail (i.e., no polling places). I take it that those ballots would be delivered to city hall, and then, it is up to the workers at city hall to "find" the voters, correct?

Boy, corrupt politicians never had it so good. They can steal an election without even leaving the office!
10.12.2008 11:45am
PC:
It seems to be pretty clear what this is shaping up as. Facing an overwhelming defeat Republicans are preemptively trying to cast doubt on the election. ACORN is just a convenient foil. McCain is toast so the only thing left is to cast doubt on the process. Given the Republican push at whipping up crowds by suggesting that Obama palls around with terrorists, isn't a real American, might be a secret Mulsim, etc., I wouldn't doubt if this strategy leads to violence.

I'll say it now, the Republicans own this. Hate, bigotry and ignorance is what they are selling and they will own the results.
10.12.2008 1:25pm
JosephSlater (mail):
PC:

Absolutely. Yesterday (Sat.) on Fox, they had a big story on ACORN and followed it up requests to respond to a new e-mail poll question: "Do you think the election will be fair and honest?"

Although I'm not sure if the Fox line now is "the polls are all wrong because closet racists are lying to pollsters," or, at least implicitly, "OK, we're going to lose, but that's only because the other guy cheated."
10.12.2008 1:59pm
PC:
Here is a Fox News story pushing this meme. The comments are...interesting.
10.12.2008 2:05pm
JosephSlater (mail):
PC:

Good lord. I'll just hope that anger and denial are steps on the road to acceptance.
10.12.2008 2:13pm
SenatorX (mail):
So basically there is no reason defenders of ACORN can give to why people are registering people(democrats) multiple times?

So far all I have heard is lies (the registers are paid by the number of people they register), idiotic non-sequiturs (they are champions of democracy trying to get more people to vote), tu quoque misdirection (it’s the Republicans who are committing real voter fraud by purges), and finally a red herring (ACORN is just a convenient foil).

I would have to assume a couple things from this. A) They are indeed committing fraud and B) defenders on this thread of ACORN are so blinded by partisanship that they are unable or unwilling to approach this (and possibly other) partisan issues with anything remotely resembling honesty.
10.12.2008 2:22pm
Brooklynite (www):
So basically there is no reason defenders of ACORN can give to why people are registering people(democrats) multiple times?

Even where people doing registration work are being paid by the hour, they have to have something to show for their work at the end of a shift. (I've seen it reported that ACORN workers are given numerical targets to meet in some states.) This seems like the Occam's Razor explanation to me.
10.12.2008 2:38pm
PC:
SenatorX, from what I've read ACORN does not pay people per registration, but there is some sort of quota system in place so workers don't just go bowling the entire day. Meeting that quota would be enough of an incentive for workers to toss in false registrations.

btw, my point about Republicans using ACORN as a foil is not meant to distract from any malfeasance on ACORN's part. If ACORN is doing something wrong they should be held accountable.

So far all I've seen is a constant hype from Fox News about ACORN stealing the election, yet there is no proof being offered that ACORN is doing anything wrong. ACORN has internal safeguards, they notify the election boards which registrations look fraudulent, they turn in anyone they find producing fraudulent registrations, etc.

This is a blatant attempt to preemptively delegitimize the election.
10.12.2008 2:44pm
Dr. Weevil (mail) (www):
So, PC: Did you read my WSJ link? It appears that the 2004 Washington governor's race was in fact stolen, and the vast majority of commenters here don't seem to give a damn.
10.12.2008 2:47pm
PC:
Dr. Weevil, I did. I've also read articles about over votes in Ohio 2004 that favored Bush. And those problems should be fixed and the election results litigated.

What appears to be going on with this ACORN thing is new. I've already spelled it out, and if you don't see it, then I guess we can agree to disagree.

But the Republicans own this.
10.12.2008 2:56pm
Oren:

The arguments against there being voter fraud run along the lines: "We don't see any, therefore there is none" But that depends on how hard you look. By using sampling techniques we can get estimate how many registrations are fraudulent.

Registration fraud is meaningless if it doesn't result in actual voter fraud.
10.12.2008 3:13pm
just me (mail):
What appears to be going on with this ACORN thing is new. I've already spelled it out, and if you don't see it, then I guess we can agree to disagree.


Do you mean the charges against ACORN are new or that the behavior is new? Define new?

ACORN was an issue in 2004 and there were convicitions of some ACORN workers for fraudulent voter registration forms.

I think the problem here is that this is rampant throughout the organization. Now the organization may not be condoning the behavior in malice, but there is certainly something about their methods that lead to the fraudulent registrations. There have been several charges that voters were pressured to fill out mulitple forms-perhaps telling workers to accept "I already registered" is a good place to start, but better yet I think the pay is the big problem. Maybe the organization should just seek volunteers instead of workers for pay.
10.12.2008 3:13pm
Oren:

So, PC: Did you read my WSJ link? It appears that the 2004 Washington governor's race was in fact stolen, and the vast majority of commenters here don't seem to give a damn.

Yes, I can write out some unsubstantiated claims as well. There is not a single attributed quote by someone in a position to observe malfeasance, only vague "officials" and the shocking revelation that a few hundred homeless people used the same address to register.

Homeless people have the right to vote. They even have the right to not have a legitimate personal address and still vote. Why is that so hard to swallow?
10.12.2008 3:18pm
Oren:

So basically there is no reason defenders of ACORN can give to why people are registering people(democrats) multiple times?
I don't feel a need to answer the question because (a) I think ACORN is a terribly run organization and hardly worth defending and (b) multiple registrations mean absolutely nothing unless they lead to multiple voting.
10.12.2008 3:20pm
Dr. Weevil (mail) (www):
Oren writes of my WSJ link:

"There is not a single attributed quote by someone in a position to observe malfeasance, only vague 'officials' and the shocking revelation that a few hundred homeless people used the same address to register."

Here are 5th and 6th paragraphs from the linked story:

"Most disturbing is the revelation last week by King County officials that at least 348 unverified provisional ballots were fed directly into vote-counting machines. 'Did it happen? Yes. Unfortunately, that's part of the process in King County,' elections superintendent Bill Huennekens told the Seattle Times. 'It's a very human process, and in some cases that did happen.'

"King County elections director Dean Logan, Mr. Huennekens' boss, also concedes the discrepancy between the number of ballots cast and the list of people who are recorded as voting. Even though the gap is 1,200 votes, he says, 'that does not clearly indicate that the election would have turned out differently.' Are voters supposed to trust an election merely because it can't 'clearly' be shown to be hopelessly tainted? Mr. Logan is certainly singing a different tune now than he was on Nov. 18, when he responded to charges of voting irregularities in an e-mail to colleagues, which read in part: 'Unfortunately, I have come to expect this kind of unsubstantiated crap. It's all too convenient, if not now fashionable, to stoop to this level when there is a close race.'"

Oren's statement that "There is not a single attributed quote by someone in a position to observe malfeasance" is simply false. Unless, of course, he meant that there are three pertinent quotations from two different people, which I suppose is technically "not a single" one.
10.12.2008 3:37pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
TO: All
RE: Heh

"...neither Democrats nor Republicans on the county's election board believes the bad registrations will compromise the election's results." -- Jonathan Adler

Why am I suddenly reminded of the way my own county Republican Party organization has behaved over the last few years.

Something tells me thinks have been 'compromised'.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Every people get the governance they deserve.]
10.12.2008 3:41pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
P.S....

"They said computer databases flag people who try to register multiple times, and Ohio voter identification laws exclude people from casting regular ballots when the board has not verified residency." -- Some report

I seem to recall how some people I know were reporting the odd presence of the computer database programmer from Denver in the immediate vicinity of the voting machines, after the election, when there seemed to be some 'confusion' over how thet tally of ballots was going.

That was in 2006.

Regards.....
10.12.2008 3:44pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
P.P.S. Oh. Yeah....

...there've been Democrats holding the County Clerk office for quite some time. Including the 2006 election.
10.12.2008 3:46pm
Chuck Pelto (mail) (www):
P.P.P.S. Now that I recollect it....

...it seems that during the course of the ballot counting in November 2006, the County Clerk/Recorder refused to allow Election Judges of the Republican persuasion into the counting area.

That is until the official representative of the Colorado Secretary of State came down and personally demanded they be admitted to the area where the Democratic Party reps were allowed.
10.12.2008 3:50pm
Jmaie (mail):
Facing an overwhelming defeat Republicans are preemptively trying to cast doubt on the election. ACORN is just a convenient foil.

Not saying you're wrong about the likely outcome next month, but ACORN/fraud allegations have been around since long before this election cycle. It is improper to dismiss complaints of criminal activity as merely partisan without discovering whether they have any merit. If ACORN is involved in voter fraud, it needs to be slapped.

2006
2004
10.12.2008 3:52pm
SenatorX (mail):
Ok PC, Oren, and Brooklynite I can accept that and thank you for the latest reasoned responses. It could be lazy registers (with or without quotas) and lousy quality control at ACORN. It is at least plausible enough to me that we would have to look at other data to prove voter fraud.
10.12.2008 3:58pm
PC:
Jmaie, I agree. If ACORN is committing fraud they should be stopped. What I don't agree with is the tone that places like Fox News are taking.
10.12.2008 4:09pm
Ralph Wiggum (mail):
The line that ACORN is the one getting cheated is a lie. First, where does ACORN's hard-earned money come from? It comes from the taxpayers is where it comes from, so the only people getting cheated are the taxpayers.

The idea that "merely registering" fraudulent voters is not a problem is also a lie. ACORN appears to have been systematically submitting fraudulent registrations. Why would they do that? Well if you make up names and remember the address, you wait a few weeks and the government sends a "voter registration card" that looks less official than the "library card" they gave us in elementary school. No photo, just a name and an address. You know why we don't catch people engaged in actual voter fraud? Because once you have the card with a name and an address, no one can stop you from voting.

What we need to do is go back and look at all registrations submitted by ACORN over the years. I am sure we will find many questionable registrations that ended up actually voting.
10.12.2008 4:19pm
PC:
ACORN appears to have been systematically submitting fraudulent registrations. Why would they do that?

Because they are required by law to submit every registration they collect.
10.12.2008 4:35pm
Oren:

Oren's statement that "There is not a single attributed quote by someone in a position to observe malfeasance" is simply false. Unless, of course, he meant that there are three pertinent quotations from two different people, which I suppose is technically "not a single" one.


Main Entry:
mal·fea·sance Listen to the pronunciation of malfeasance
Pronunciation:
\ˌmal-ˈfē-zən(t)s\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
mal- + obsolete feasance doing, execution
Date:
1696
: wrongdoing or misconduct especially by a public official

Neither of those two people said anything that could be construed as wrongdoing or misconduct. They admitted to discrepancies which they attributed to error which is explicitly not malfeasance.

I suggest you try actually reading the comments to which you are responding -- sometimes the English language can be a bit tricky.
10.12.2008 4:35pm
Dr. Weevil (mail) (www):
According to Oren, calling charges "unsubstantiated crap" and then later admitting that they are true is not "malfeasance", and neither is illegally counting 348 unverified ballots or allowing 1,200 more votes than voters, which I would think prima facie evidence of ballot-box stuffing. That may or may not be premeditated and criminal wrongdoing, but it looks like wrongdoing and malfeasance to me. Does it only count as "wrongdoing" or "malfeasance" if it has been proven premeditated and criminal in a court of law? I think gross incompetence in matters of importance is wrong, and when you screw up an election as badly as King County did, and then refuse to allow a revote, you are in fact doing wrong and therefore committing 'wrongdoing' in English, 'malfeasance' in Anglo-French.

In any case, Oren did not write that no malfeasance was observed, he wrote "There is not a single attributed quote by someone in a position to observe malfeasance, only vague 'officials' and the shocking revelation that a few hundred homeless people used the same address to register". Were Huennekens and Logan not in a position to observe malfeasance? They were in fact quoted by name, along with several other people, including a couple of defenders of Gregoire. And it was not just homeless people who listed the county building as their home address, but a judge and his wife, the latter of whom the author of the WSJ story claims to have spoken to.

Oren is trying to wriggle out of taking responsibility for his own misstatements (to put it politely). Looks like malfeasance to me.
10.12.2008 5:29pm
Mark in Texas (mail):
Oren: Registration fraud is meaningless if it doesn't result in actual voter fraud.

However registration fraud is often the first part of a fraudulent voting scheme. First nonexistent persons John Smith, John Jones, John Brown and John Robinson are registered with an address of 123 Oak Street in Precinct One. On election day, four individuals are driven to the Precinct One polling place and handed their voter registration cards. They go in and vote. They then drive to Precinct Two where they are each handed a new voter registration card for another nonexistent but registered voter and they go in and vote. Then on to Precinct Three and so on for the rest of election day.

Since this method can get expensive and time consuming, they are tending to go more towards requesting absentee ballots for the nonexistent voters.
10.12.2008 5:34pm
PDXLawyer (mail):
I'd be a little more relaxed about voter fraud if I saw some evidence that anyone was ever prosecuted for it. In the litigation after the very close 2004 Washington gubinatorial election, five convicted felons (ineligible to vote in Washington) testified under oath (at the behest of the Democrats) that they voted for the Republican candidate. The Republicans did not present any felons to testify that they voted for the Democrat.

The Republicans then asked the US Attorney to prosecute those witnesses who had testified under oath to committing voter fraud. The US Attorney refused, contending that such a prosecution would be "political" and was thereafter removed. This was deemed a scandalous misuse of power by the Bush Administration. What is wrong with this picture?

Sure, a lot of fraud is going to be hard to catch. But if we can't even start with prosecuting people who admit to committing fraud under oath, because it would be too "political," there really is no hope left.

My question to those who think this is all just some wierd paranoid Republican fantasy - would it be OK for elections officials who receive "suspect" registrations to try to track down their source and gently explain the civil and criminal penalties attaching to voting fraud? Or would this be "suppressing" voting?
10.12.2008 5:38pm
Mike G in Corvallis (mail):
ACORN appears to have been systematically submitting fraudulent registrations. Why would they do that?

Because they are required by law to submit every registration they collect.

Well, damn! I guess that settles it, doesn't it? Because no citizen of this great nation has ever broken a law!

The questions still stand:

* If ACORN supposedly is expending so much effort checking and re-checking the validity of the registrations it collects, then why doesn't the organization change its own procedures to better ensure their validity at signup and thereby save ACORN's time, money, and reputation?

(trad and anon's response: "To this, I say: never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity." So then ACORN and those who support it with time and money -- such as a certain presidential candidate -- are simply stupid?)

* If, as MarkField claims, ACORN performs "validity checking" of the registrations before submitting them to the local elections officials -- e.g., by sorting them into "probably good" and "probably fraudulent" piles -- just to save the officials from wasting too much effort on their own independent checking (of course), then what prevents ACORN from preferentially sorting Democratic registrations into the "probably good" pile and Republican registrations into the "probably fraudulent" pile?

* Does ACORN (or some allied party) derive some other benefit from having fictitious voters on the rolls?
10.12.2008 5:46pm
PC:
Mark in Texas, the scenario you describe is possible, but Occam's Razor is suggestive. How many people would need to be involved in this conspiracy theory you have woven?

Mike G in Corvallis,

why doesn't the organization change its own procedures to better ensure their validity at signup

Do you know what ACORN's procedures are? I don't, so maybe they could be better. So far it looks like a case of laziness on the part of ACORN canvassers rather than some grand conspiracy.

what prevents ACORN from preferentially sorting Democratic registrations into the "probably good" pile and Republican registrations into the "probably fraudulent" pile

Nothing, other than the having to know who is a Republican and who is a Democrat. You would also have to have a lot of people involved in this conspiracy (nationwide) for it to be effective.

Does ACORN (or some allied party) derive some other benefit from having fictitious voters on the rolls?

Perhaps their masters in the New World Order have told ACORN that whoever register the most fake voters wins an extra hour of exercise time in the FEMA camps.

This ACORN conspiracy stuff is rapidly approaching 9/11 truther territory.
10.12.2008 6:05pm
Oren:
Weevil, all of those things you claim as proof of "ballot stuffing" are easily explained as minor discrepancies. Nor do you point to any particular area in which the officials were so grossly negligent in the discharge of their duties to warrant accusations of wrong-doing.

The most you can make out of those sour grapes in sour wine.
10.12.2008 6:15pm
Dr. Weevil (mail) (www):
Read the article, Oren. North Carolina held a "statewide March revote of the race for agriculture commissioner after a computer ate 4,438 ballots in a GOP-leaning county. Without those votes, the GOP candidate was leading by 2,287 votes out of 3.5 million cast." In other words, the Democrat would almost certainly have lost an error-free vote, since he would have had to get more than 75% of the missing votes in a GOP-leaning county to win, but they held a revote just to make sure.

In Washington, Gregoire was declared the winner by 129 votes when 1500+ votes had been illegally cast in heavily-Democratic King County. A revote was the only ethical option, but it was not done. It is very unlikely that Gregoire received more legitimate votes than Rossi, and (as I've already said) that doesn't seem to bother most of the commenters here.
10.12.2008 6:33pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Dr. W.

Depends on whose ox. There is no principle visible here, except for what it takes.

Were the results favoring republicans, we'd sure see some concern.
10.12.2008 7:07pm
just me (mail):
How many people would need to be involved in this conspiracy theory you have woven?


Not too many depending on how it was done.

The problem right now is because we appear to be taking the fraudulent registrations lightly, we open the door for voter fraud. Fraudulent registrations are easier to catch than actual fraud.

The use of the absentee ballot is a great way to use these registrations. Fill out fake registrations with fake (for the voter), but real addresses, and get your absentee ballot and start voting.

As for multiple registrations by the same person-this could work if they registered in different precincts with different addresses. It could especially work, if you had a registrar willing to overlook them-which takes only one person. Once you are on the roles, and nothing more is required than maybe showing a voter ID card, you can vote away.

The real question is whether this kind of fraud, or if any fraud can change elections. It can, but more likely on a local level than something like the presidential race, but why not try it, if you thought you could get away with it, and even if it didn't change the outcome, should we condone it, since in most cases it wouldn't change anything?

In the end, tolerating or excusing an level of fraud in the registration and voting process is wrong, not so much because candidates will always win when fraud is used, but because it cheapens the process itself and calls into the doubt the legitimacy of the vote.
10.12.2008 7:13pm
NickM (mail) (www):
So, since the people registering phony voters are defrauding ACORN as well as violating state and federal laws, how many of them has ACORN made complaints to the local police about?

Better yet, were they all terminated immediately from employment with ACORN upon an internal finding that they had probably submitted bad registrations?

Nick
10.12.2008 7:15pm
just me (mail):
Well if you make up names and remember the address, you wait a few weeks and the government sends a "voter registration card" that looks less official than the "library card" they gave us in elementary school. No photo, just a name and an address. You know why we don't catch people engaged in actual voter fraud? Because once you have the card with a name and an address, no one can stop you from voting.

Our library cards actually have our picture on them. They are actually more secure than our voter registration cards, which are paper and could easily be counter fitted. Shoot the voter registration card doesn't look any different than a business card printed with an official seal on it.

I agree with you as well-that once you have the card in hand, there is very little that is going to keep you from voting and getting caught, and even if your vote became suspect at some point after the voting, it would be next to impossible to actually find you for prosecution. This is one reason why the registration process should be filled with integrity.

ACORN seems to lack the integrity part. The accusations have been rampant for years and it actually seems worse this year than in previous years, which makes me wonder why they haven't changed how they do business if integrity is important.
10.12.2008 7:22pm
PC:
NickM, this comment includes ACORN's response to some of your questions.

I don't like defending ACORN because I don't know much about them. They could be an incredibly corrupt organization that is trying to steal the election so there will be an Islamic takeover of the US. But there's nothing I've seen that proves what they are doing is malicious.

On the other hand, the right wing narrative being developed around the election is pretty easy to figure out.
10.12.2008 7:35pm
just me (mail):
This article explains a bit where the problems may be.

A 7 year old girl is actually registered to vote, because a person that used her name raised her age. Now this little girls is honest and so is her family, and they brought this to the media's attention. However, if her mother was less than honest, she could take a friend from a different precinct along and have her vote with her daughter's card.

The point it that this little girl's registration got past the registers office, and I bet hers isn't the only fake one to get through.

I still believe that the majority of the registration fraud is tied to the fact that they people collecting them are paid and expected to sign up a certain number of people per day, rather than an absolute malice to commit actual voter fraud. But pretending like registration fraud isn't a problem or shouldn't be taken seriously or prosecuted is wrong, because it corrupts the whole process. The reality is that at the very least at the registration point in the process a voter should have to prove age, residency and citizenship-even if that means it might make it a little more difficult to vote.
10.12.2008 7:41pm
Jimo (mail):
I have to laugh at the multiple references to Wall Street Journal "articles" or "stories." In fact, there are only references to WSJ EDITORIALS. Even casual readers of the WSJ will recognize that the paper keeps a strict "separation of church and state" between its editorial (to the right of Attila the Hun) and news (quite good if business-centric) pages.

John Fund is only slightly more fairminded and balanced than Rush Limbaugh. (At least Mr. Fund doesn't quote himself as evidence.) His wholehearted embrace of radical rightwing politics assures him a fall back position with the likes of Redstate.com if he ever loses his WSJ gig. What's more, Mr. Fund's breathless "reporting" fails to provide any convincing evidence of voter fraud (rather the same vote counting messes seen in Florida in 2000). Proof? Does anyone seriously believe that the Justice Department of the Bush Administration would fail to investigate voter fraud that elected a DEMOCRAT? Seriously!

The fact is that voter fraud is of little value even in the closest of races. To alter election results significantly would require activity on a massive scale. What's more, such fraud would prove pointless in any election with a significant number of votes, i.e., anything larger than a local election with perhaps no more than 15,000 votes cast.

People who believe that voter fraud is common are the same gullible people who respond to the voluminous spam from horny housewives looking for a potbellied paramour on the side.
10.12.2008 8:08pm
just me (mail):
So Jimo you do not care then about the integrity of the voting system.

Should we just forget all about registrations, proofs of residency, and citizenship and let any and all vote?

The issue I see here is that even if voter fraud or voter registration fraud doesn't affect the outcome of an election it still shouldn't be tolerated, because it corrupts the whole system.

And I am not convinced voter fraud can't affect the outcome of a race, there have been enough close races over the years to convince me otherwise, although I doubt it could do much for national races or even some state races, but at the local level you could reek havoc with some fake voters.
10.12.2008 8:12pm
PC:
But pretending like registration fraud isn't a problem or shouldn't be taken seriously or prosecuted is wrong, because it corrupts the whole process.

Some people may be dismissing registration fraud due to the impact of the problem, but it is a problem that should be addressed.

On the scale of problems in the US electoral system, registration fraud ranks low on my list. Voter fraud certainly ranks higher, but I think electronic voting machines should be higher than both. I don't think there is some concerted effort to steal elections using voting machines, but actually tipping an election one way or the other would be much easier given what we know about some of the electronic voting machines out there.

btw, the article you link helps confirm my suspicion about problems with ACORN registration:

Most states prohibit paying per signature, but ACORN workers earning $8 to $9 an hour still have to hit their quotas. And many need the money - including some ex-cons in work-release programs.


also:

Roberta Casteel, a nurse, is one of several dozen Nevada voters caught in the web of fake ACORN registrations. Casteel, a registered voter since 1991, was shocked to receive a letter rejecting a voter application she didn't know she'd made.

Authorities said they'd received two voter applications in her name: one as a Democrat and one as an independent. Both cards had her address, date of birth and Social Security number, and were submitted by ACORN workers. Neither signature matched her original one on file.


It looks more like corner cutting than conspiracy.
10.12.2008 8:18pm
Dr. Weevil (mail) (www):
I have to laugh at anyone so far left that he thinks the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal are "to the right of Attila the Hun". Of course, Jimo is careful not to mention that the first two quotations in Fund's editorial are from Gregoire and one of her staff, and that he also quotes a local reporter sneering at the calls for a revote. Three quotations from the other side is three more than most columnists give these days, but Jimo still thinks it fair to question Fund's fairmindedness. Project much, Jimo?
10.12.2008 8:20pm
TruthInAdvertising:
Does anyone have numbers on how many people ACORN has registered nationwide? Of that number, how many of those registrations have been determined to be fraudulent? I know that paid petition circulators for Republican-backed ballot initiatives in my area collected the signatures of thousands of ineligible voters which were only discovered when the petitions were reviewed by our Secretary of State and local Democratic Party officials. Those ineligible signatures could have led to a proposal being fraudulently placed on the ballot if they had not been reviewed. Where's the outrage from the Republicans about those efforts to hijack the political process?
10.12.2008 8:22pm
Mark in Texas (mail):
PC : Mark in Texas, the scenario you describe is possible, but Occam's Razor is suggestive. How many people would need to be involved in this conspiracy theory you have woven?

That scenario I described delivered enough votes in New Orleans to elect Mary Landrieu to the Senate her first time out in 1996. Apparently the people of Louisiana were happy enough with her performance in Washington that she was legitimately reelected with a majority of living, existing people voting the second time in 2004. Does that make the practice OK to you?

They seem to have been able to put together enough people to pull off the vote fraud in 1996. There was an investigation because some of the people who voted multiple times complained that they were promised $50 per vote but that all they got was a box lunch and a Mary Landrieu tee shirt, but the only conclusion that I ever heard was "That's just the way we do things in New Orleans".

Using absentee ballots instead of live people allows party regulars and campaign staff to cast those fraudulent ballots without involving large numbers of people who make a stink and go to the press when you stiff them for the money they were promised.
10.12.2008 8:25pm
Mark in Texas (mail):
PC : I don't like defending ACORN because I don't know much about them.

My sister in law used to work for them. She is still a left wing bleeding heart who works with poor people but she has nothing good to say about ACORN. The thing that bothered her the most is that they lie all the time as a matter of policy.
10.12.2008 8:32pm
just me (mail):
It looks more like corner cutting than conspiracy.

But it is a prevalent problem for the organization, which to me at least, if ACORN wants to appear legitimate they should work to change. My belief is that the problem here is that people are being paid to register voters, and while they are being paid per registrant, the demand for a quota is enough to encourage fraud out of sheer laziness. You don't have to work nearly as hard to fill out 25 fake forms than to find actual unregistered voters.

And the problem is endemic throughout the organization, it is showing up in multiple states and in multiple locations. The problem isn't bad apples in one region, but bad apples throughout. Maybe they need to figure out what is rotting the apples rather than tossing more apples in the barrel.

I do think the majority of the fake registrations are filled out without any intent to actually cast votes, but I don't think it corrupts the process any less.

I think any voting apparatus has potential for fraud, I don't think one is necessarily worse than the other. I am fine with an electronic machine provided there is a paper trail-where the vote is actually recorded somewhere on paper and not just sent off into the hard drive of a computer. But then I live in a small town that up until the primary election used paper and pencil and a bunch of little old ladies counting votes by hand. The last election our town had purchased optical scan machines, which do have a paper trail.

I also think we need to all admit that any type of voting is going to have some level of error, that may benefit one side or the other, but has no malice attached, and that error may be human or machine error.
10.12.2008 8:41pm
PC:
Mark in Texas, I hadn't heard of the Landrieu fraud before you mentioned it so I looked it up. It seems Sen. Warren (R - VA) was fine with the results of the Republican led investigation. Are you saying Sen. Warren was incorrect?

The Wikipedia description of events is interesting, but maybe you could cite a source that can explain the version of events you have described?

Does that make the practice OK to you?

I'm not sure what gives you the impression that I'm okay with registration fraud or voter fraud. I think both are illegal, wrong and should be prosecuted. I'm questioning the sudden rush to investigate registration fraud versus its potential impact on elections. To effect a national election the fraud would have to be vast and conspiracies don't really work that way.
10.12.2008 8:49pm
Jmaie (mail):
Dr. Weevil

Actually, Rossi won the initial count and the first recount. Gregoire won after the second recount.
10.12.2008 8:51pm
PC:
just me, And the problem is endemic throughout the organization, it is showing up in multiple states and in multiple locations. The problem isn't bad apples in one region, but bad apples throughout. Maybe they need to figure out what is rotting the apples rather than tossing more apples in the barrel.

That's actually why I quoted the bit about ACORN hiring ex-cons on work release programs. It almost seems like ACORN has a model that is begging for controversy.

I do think the majority of the fake registrations are filled out without any intent to actually cast votes, but I don't think it corrupts the process any less.

I agree it's a corruption of the process, but I would hope there are safeguards in the process. In the cases cited in Nevada the election board caught it. I think fraudulent registration is certainly less corrupting than voter fraud. If someone registers Big Bird to vote, I doubt that Big Bird is going to show up on election day.

I am fine with an electronic machine provided there is a paper trail-where the vote is actually recorded somewhere on paper and not just sent off into the hard drive of a computer.

Some of the machines don't use a paper trail, but even the current paper trail machines are subject to fraud. Gambling machines have more safeguards placed on them than voting machines. Given the impact of politicians on out wallets, I would hope that completely honest and verifiable voting machines is something everyone would support.

I also think we need to all admit that any type of voting is going to have some level of error, that may benefit one side or the other, but has no malice attached, and that error may be human or machine error.

Agreed. Our voting system should be legitimate and people should feel secure that their vote will count. Given the technology available today that should be attainable.
10.12.2008 9:07pm
Mike G in Corvallis (mail):
PC wrote:
Mike G in Corvallis,

why doesn't the organization change its own procedures to better ensure their validity at signup

Do you know what ACORN's procedures are? I don't, so maybe they could be better. ...

"Maybe"? This entire discussion thread is is the result of how bad ACORN's procedures are. These procedures not only result in many fraudulent voter registrations, they cost ACORN time and money, and they damage ACORN's reputation. Isn't it fair to ask why ACORN has not, over the years, improved its procedures to reduce fraud?
... So far it looks like a case of laziness on the part of ACORN canvassers rather than some grand conspiracy.

Ah. "Laziness." With that level of generosity in attributing motives to actions, one could decide that the occupation of the Sudetenland was the result of thousands of people spontaneously being afflicted by wanderlust and the desire to wear spiffy uniforms.
what prevents ACORN from preferentially sorting Democratic registrations into the "probably good" pile and Republican registrations into the "probably fraudulent" pile

Nothing, other than the having to know who is a Republican and who is a Democrat. ...

Oh, you mean it's difficult to tell from those words "Democrat" and "Republican" written on the registration forms themselves?
... You would also have to have a lot of people involved in this conspiracy (nationwide) for it to be effective.

Oddly enough, ACORN has signed up thousands of people nationwide, some of whom have been shoown to have committed fraud. Why call it a "conspiracy" when the description "dishonest organization" will do?
Does ACORN (or some allied party) derive some other benefit from having fictitious voters on the rolls?

Perhaps their masters in the New World Order have told ACORN that whoever register the most fake voters wins an extra hour of exercise time in the FEMA camps.

This ACORN conspiracy stuff is rapidly approaching 9/11 truther territory.

You answer an honest question with snark, and then accuse me of conspiracy thinking. OK, I've got you calibrated.
10.12.2008 9:17pm
just me (mail):
I'm questioning the sudden rush to investigate registration fraud versus its potential impact on elections.

Do you really think this is a sudden rush?

There were accusations and convictions in 2004 and 2006, the only difference is that this election cycle it is getting more media coverage. The complaints and knowledge that there is a problem in how they do business have been around for at least two election cycles that I am aware of, and this one would be the third.

As for why now? Because this is a presidential election year, and this is when ACORN is really doing its stuff.
10.12.2008 9:39pm
NickM (mail) (www):
ACORN recently turned in 5000 forms in one county in Indiana. The first 2100 were all in the same handwriting (i.e., fake). [They haven't processed the other 2900 yet.] Now unless the canvasser suddenly showed up with a batch of 2100 forms at one time (which would be serious overkill if you just wanted forms to turn in to get paid for the week), ACORN kept this dirtbag working for them after anyone bothering to look at the forms would have realized they were all garbage.

ACORN's press releases do not instill a high degree of confidence that they're true.

Nick
10.12.2008 10:02pm
DangerMouse:
Mike G,

Look, ACORN is running a numbers game like any other type of mafia. Their numbers game involves votes, not bets, but they've rigged it so that they win anyway. The defenders of ACORN acknowledge this and let that mafia continue its activities, because they consider it a lesser vice and it helps them out anyway. Just like cops who also use the prostitutes, there's multiple back-scratching going on.

The defenders of ACORN, those minimizing voter fraud, or saying that "registration fraud" is not voter fraud, are all just willing participants in the same corruption.

You really should just accept the reality that liberals, on this blog and elsewhere, accept voter fraud. They ACCEPT IT. They probably wouldn't do it themselves, but they don't care about it because it always benefits their side.

ACORN is designed to commit voter fraud. It's a left-wing organization wholly designed to elect Democrats. ACORN says they're required to submit every registration filled out because of the law. Does anyone know if they're doing this? Frankly, I assumed that they just destroyed every Republican registration form in the shredders at the end of the day. Only a fool would actually trust ACORN to validly register them as a Republican.
10.12.2008 10:04pm
PC:
Mike G in Corvallis, \Isn't it fair to ask why ACORN has not, over the years, improved its procedures to reduce fraud?

That is completely fair. The question is about ACORN's internal procedures for catching bad actors. It seems that ACORN may be set up to fail, by their own actions, because they are hiring people that not only cut corners, but also break the law. This is still not evidence of wanting to steal an election.

Ah. "Laziness." With that level of generosity in attributing motives to actions, one could decide that the occupation of the Sudetenland was the result of thousands of people spontaneously being afflicted by wanderlust and the desire to wear spiffy uniforms.

Sweet. Godwin. If you think hiring sometimes lazy and or shady people to register voters approaches the level of Nazism you need a perspective check.

Oh, you mean it's difficult to tell from those words "Democrat" and "Republican" written on the registration forms themselves?

Is there any evidence that ACORN is giving preference to a party?

Oddly enough, ACORN has signed up thousands of people nationwide, some of whom have been shoown to have committed fraud. Why call it a "conspiracy" when the description "dishonest organization" will do?

Hundreds of thousands from what I've read. I would be interested in seeing a ratio of fraudulent applications versus valid applications that were sent in by ACORN. I would also like to see how many of the fraudulent apps were identified by ACORN's internal controls (because they are legally bound to turn in all applications) and that information was passed on to the election boards.

You answer an honest question with snark, and then accuse me of conspiracy thinking.

You posed an open ended question and the entire "ACORN conspiracy" is looking less and less likely. Let me know what benefits ACORN would gain from having fraudulent voters on the voter role. I can't think of any.
10.12.2008 10:34pm
PC:
ACORN recently turned in 5000 forms in one county in Indiana. The first 2100 were all in the same handwriting (i.e., fake).

Thank you, NickM. That looks like outright fraud and should be investigated and prosecuted.
10.12.2008 10:39pm
PC:
DangerMouse, seriously, just stop. ACORN seems to have some serious problems that need to be addressed. The existence of ACORN is not some liberal conspiracy to abort babies.
10.12.2008 10:43pm
DangerMouse:
DangerMouse, seriously, just stop. ACORN seems to have some serious problems that need to be addressed. The existence of ACORN is not some liberal conspiracy to abort babies.

Of course it's not a conspiracy. But they have set the conditions to create, and have encouraged and winked at, very serious fraud that apparently goes unpunished. And it's no surprise that the people in charge are liberal to the core, which is why the Infanticide Candidate worked with them.

Thank you, NickM. That looks like outright fraud and should be investigated and prosecuted.

It won't.
10.12.2008 11:07pm
PC:
DangerMouse, And it's no surprise that the people in charge are liberal to the core, which is why the Infanticide Candidate worked with them.

I asked you this question in a previous thread and I apologize if I missed your answer: Should a woman who has an abortion be charged with murder?

It won't.

It should.
10.12.2008 11:12pm
geokstr:
There is an old internal control procedure to help control this.

- All the registration forms are sequentially numbered

- Employees are given consecutively numbered blocks of forms

- The employee name and the numbers he has been assigned are recorded

- All questionable forms can them be easily traced back not only to specific employees, but also to their supervisors, and appropriate disciplinary actions can be taken, including termination and/or legal prosecution

This assumes of course that ACORN gives a flying rat's *ss.

If they did, they could also invest some of those tens of millions of taxpayer dollars they get from democrat earmarks to set up a system of electronic crosschecking with the state and federal governments, to insure that can weed out multiple registrations signed by Flash Gordon or Joliet Jake or Tony Romo.

Perhaps also something akin to the Community Reinvestment Act they are so enamored of could be legislated to prevent "blue-lining", i.e., doing all their "non-partisan" registering in areas where republicans have been declared extinct long ago. Can you picture a swarm of homeless convicts, bearing their numbered forms, descending on military bases, Veteran's Halls, and Policemens Benevolent Associations meetings?
10.12.2008 11:20pm
geokstr:
Let us also remember that, by his own admission, Obama is a disciple of Saul Alinsky, a Marxist rabble-rouser who wrote "Rules for Radicals" in the 1960s. The Rules were basically a twisted, internally contradictory set of rationalizations for why radicals could justify almost any means that produced progress towards their ends. This includes lying, cheating, hypocrisy, intimidation, threats of violence, and just about anything else short of real violence (which he decried as counter-productive.)

Alinsky was the inventor of "community organizing", which for him was just a euphemism for Marxist revolution, and the empty slogan he advocated using was..."change".

Sound familiar yet?

The Rules also advocated putting a specific face on the source of the "evil" you are trying to eradicate, and it should be someone in authority, like "...a CEO, a mayor or a president". This person is to called the personification of the devil, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, and ridiculed as "...intellectually deficient...".

And this was written over half a century ago.

Obama worked with ACORN as a trainer, organized and led the teams for their "Project Vote", and represented ACORN as their lawyer when they forced the Clinton administration to loosen up the restrictions on Fannie/Freddie so they could vastly increase their buying of risky mortgage loans in 1995. When this happened, lending institutions had a place to dump all the subprime loans they were being forced to make, and set the stage for an explosion of subprime lending that led to the current "crisis" that coincidentally happened exactly when it was needed to almost guarantee the election of...Obama.

What a lucky break for him, eh?
10.12.2008 11:54pm
jccamp (mail):
Jimo -

"The fact is that voter fraud is of little value even in the closest of races. To alter election results significantly would require activity on a massive scale. What's more, such fraud would prove pointless in any election with a significant number of votes, i.e., anything larger than a local election with perhaps no more than 15,000 votes cast. "


That's not exactly true. For example, in Miami, Florida's 2nd largest city, municipal elections have been reversed by the courts because of massive voter fraud. Voter fraud also is rife in Hialeah, Florida's 6th largest city. Elected officials have gone to jail over the issue. The fraud included dead people voting, absentee ballots filled out on behalf of the demented in nursing homes, non-citizens voting by the thousands, and the paying of voters in poor ethnic neighborhoods, which BTW, is done quite openly. Voters line up early on election day, board buses to their precincts, receive a sample ballot to take inside the booth, and are paid between $10 and $25 per vote when they exit. As an aside, this practice is also very common on the south side of Chicago.

And the votes cast in disputed Miami elections are far more than your "15,000 votes cast." I think the point of many of the posts here are that no one really knows the extent or the effect of voter fraud. For you to dismiss it so lightly is not really supported by what little facts are known.

As for your rather dismissive tone re: the Washington state governor's race, it seems to be undisputed that over a thousand more votes were counted in one county than people voted. The election official's explanation, that the extra phantom votes probably broke 50-50 for each candidate, is hardly reassuring, given that the margin of victory was 129 votes statewide.
10.13.2008 1:01am
Mike G in Corvallis (mail):
PC wrote:
Isn't it fair to ask why ACORN has not, over the years, improved its procedures to reduce fraud?

That is completely fair. The question is about ACORN's internal procedures for catching bad actors. It seems that ACORN may be set up to fail, by their own actions, because they are hiring people that not only cut corners, but also break the law. This is still not evidence of wanting to steal an election.

You (perhaps intentionally) miss the point. It's nice that you acknowledge the obvious -- that ACORN hires people who cut corners and break the law. It's puzzling that you don't address the actual question: WHY does ACORN continue to hire people who cut corners and break the law, when it costs them time and money and harms their reputation?

Ah. "Laziness." With that level of generosity in attributing motives to actions, one could decide that the occupation of the Sudetenland was the result of thousands of people spontaneously being afflicted by wanderlust and the desire to wear spiffy uniforms.

Sweet. Godwin. If you think hiring sometimes lazy and or shady people to register voters approaches the level of Nazism you need a perspective check.

I do not think that, and I suspect that you are intelligent enough to realize it.

But you have acknowledged elsewhere that over and over again individuals working for the organization commit fraud. You have acknowledged "... ACORN hiring ex-cons on work release programs. It almost seems like ACORN has a model that is begging for controversy." ("Almost"?!) You have agreed that filing fake registrations "is a corruption of the process" ... Yet despite this you seemingly refuse to believe that ACORN as an organization could be at fault and that it might intentionally be setting up these individuals to break the law. This is absurd.

Oh, you mean it's difficult to tell from those words "Democrat" and "Republican" written on the registration forms themselves?

Is there any evidence that ACORN is giving preference to a party?

You mean, is there evidence that ACORN has endorsed Barack Obama for president? Yes, there is!

I would be interested in seeing a ratio of fraudulent applications versus valid applications that were sent in by ACORN. I would also like to see how many of the fraudulent apps were identified by ACORN's internal controls (because they are legally bound to turn in all applications) and that information was passed on to the election boards.

So would I, PC, so would I! But oddly enough, ACORN does not seem to be providing this information, although if the organization were blameless one would think that they would be eager to do so. How odd.

And I continue to be astonished that ACORN's apologists seem to believe that the fact that an activity is illegal is sufficient to prevent members of an organization from committing it, despite the fact that other members of the same organization have been found guilty of committing similar illegal acts.

You answer an honest question with snark, and then accuse me of conspiracy thinking.

You posed an open ended question and the entire "ACORN conspiracy" is looking less and less likely. Let me know what benefits ACORN would gain from having fraudulent voters on the voter role. I can't think of any.

I did not accuse ACORN of being a "conspiracy," and I despise the attempt to attribute that word to me with your use of quotation marks.

I do believe that there is ample evidence that the organization is corrupt, however. Tell me, would you describe Jimmy Hoffa's Teamsters Union as a "conspiracy"? Would you deny that the Teamsters Union was corrupt?

I note also that your question -- "Let me know what benefits ACORN would gain from having fraudulent voters on the voter role. I can't think of any." -- is the question that I asked. I can't think of any either -- other than aiding and abetting voting fraud -- and yet ACORN persists in a policy that seems designed to encourage and facilitate fraudulent registrations! Why should that be?
10.13.2008 2:03am
PC:
geokstr, Let us also remember that, by his own admission, Obama is a disciple of Saul Alinsky, a Marxist rabble-rouser who wrote "Rules for Radicals" in the 1960s.

Obama also became disillusioned with Alinsky style community organizing. That has been covered on this blog.

Mike G in Corvallis, WHY does ACORN continue to hire people who cut corners and break the law, when it costs them time and money and harms their reputation?

Maybe because they are trying to rehabilitate people? I know it's a huge leap of logic, but perhaps a group that is focused on helping the poor and disadvantaged would hire some of the same.

I do not think that, and I suspect that you are intelligent enough to realize it.

Words mean things. You painted the picture, I pointed it out.

You mean, is there evidence that ACORN has endorsed Barack Obama for president? Yes, there is!

No, that's not what I meant. Has ACORN destroyed voter registrations from self-identified Republicans? I'm not asking what you "feel," I want evidence that the organization is destroying registrations based on party affiliation.

Check my repsonse to DangerMouse if you want to see an instance of a voter registration group destroying forms based on party (hint, it wasn't ACORN).

I did not accuse ACORN of being a "conspiracy," and I despise the attempt to attribute that word to me with your use of quotation marks.

Are you also aware of all internet traditions? You dipped your toes into the conspiracy water when you attributed malice to ACORNs actions. By definition, if ACORN is deliberately committing voter registration fraud it would be a conspiracy.

I can't think of any either -- other than aiding and abetting voting fraud

Dude, seriously. You are pimping a conspiracy theory. You are saying a decades old, nationwide organization is maliciously committing voter registration fraud. That means there is a conspiracy to commit a crime, and since you have no proof, it's a theory. So be a man and own up to it. Stop the pearl clutching. You believe there is a conspiracy to steal the election.

You should alert Alex Jones about your ground breaking discovery.
10.13.2008 11:11am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
PC.
So ACORN's actions--to not be a conspiracy--are a bunch of individuals doing the dirty on their own hook...?
Okay. It's not a conspiracy.
Now what?

We do know that ACORN is not engaging in a conspiracy--which is to say they are not acting in concert--to prevent it.

I know that labeling anything a "conspiracy theory" is supposed to damn it forever, no matter what validity it has. But, from time to time, there really are conspiracies.

However, to make you happy, ACORN is faking a conspiracy really, really well. Not actually conspiring or anything.
10.13.2008 12:06pm
PC:
Richard Aubrey, from the news reports I've read ACORN has actually turned in workers that they know have committed registration fraud. I'm not labeling this as a conspiracy theory to damn it forever. Real conspiracies do exist. I'm labeling this a conspiracy theory because that's what it is.

If you have evidence that ACORN is attempting to steal the election there are numerous prosecutors that would like to speak to you. If you don't, you are just helping to push a narrative. And I'll be happy to call you out on it in one month.
10.13.2008 12:31pm
A.W. (mail):
PC

Acorn has admitted in Ohio that they can't do the due dilligence to prevent fraud. For that, they are culpable by neglifence. And some of us don't take their protestations seriously. They have been doing this cycle after cycle.

But the left doesn't care about that. That is why i have long joked that the term "democratic party" is meant ironically.

It is stunning to see in this day and age, people arguing for voter fraud.
10.13.2008 1:11pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
PC. To be specific, ACORN is not conspiring to steal the election. They are conspiring to provide an opportunity for sufficient fraudulent votes for the election to go to the dems.
See, "steal" has specific meanings and to use that would open oneself to nitpicking obfuscation.
ACORN is so bad that, if they were honest, they'd just quit. Just stop. Admit they can't get a handle on it.
Then, perhaps, somebody who could do it right could start.
But, to make you happy. ACORN isn't conspiring to do what it does. It's just doing what it does. That make you happy?
10.13.2008 1:25pm
PC:
A.W., cite?

Richard Aubrey, words mean things. You are pushing a conspiracy theory. Who knows, you may be right. At least be man enough to own up to it.
10.13.2008 1:42pm
A.W. (mail):
PC

Cite for what?

This?
10.13.2008 1:49pm
PC:
btw, Jerome Corsi has some explosive information about Obama. It's interesting to see mainstream conservatives like Hannity lending a sympathetic ear to 9/11 truthers. Maybe Hannity will Andy "exterminate Jew power in America" Martin back on.
10.13.2008 1:51pm
PC:
A.W., thanks for the link.
10.13.2008 2:02pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
PC.
Your point is that ACORN is doing this fraud strictly by accident.
The folks pushing "conspiracy" believe that two or more ACORNs have arranged matters so that this will happen as a function of their procedures.
Hard to read minds, but with winks, nods, silent agreements to ignore certain issues until inevitable (thus managing to enable the ones which are missed by ACORN-watchers), you could have a conspiracy without a single shred of hard evidence. Which, if it existed, would be dismissed as the product of racism.
10.13.2008 2:07pm
PC:
Richard Aubrey, I'll make my own points. I don't think ACORN is doing anything by accident or out of malice. I think ACORN is working with an imperfect system. They hire people for low wages and a few of those workers cut corners.

you could have a conspiracy without a single shred of hard evidence

Aren't those the best kind? Like 9/11? Or Vince Foster?

Mainstreaming the crazy. Good luck with that.
10.13.2008 2:14pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Yeah, they are the best kind for the conspirators.
10.13.2008 2:52pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Crap.

But if ACORN is accidentally and with negligence aforethought working with an imperfect system, they could fix the system or quit altogether until they got a better one.
Neither of which are they doing.

We wouldn't give a big pharma the same latitude, now, would we? Or, for that matter, a fast-food restaurant. Or a grocery store's bar coding. Nope. Only ACORN gets a pass.
Has nothing to do with the results benefiting one of their patrons, the dem party. Nope.
10.13.2008 2:54pm
A.W. (mail):
P.C.

I think what Richard is saying is, look, all organizations make mistakes. but when it becomes clear time after time that their efforts at preventing fraud are not working, then it is time to change tactics. Andif they don't solve the problem, if they continue, for instance, to pay by the registration, then its hard to argue it is all accidental anymore.

And don't say no evidence of a conspiracy. They are lying about their payment practices, they are hiring former felons convicted of identity theft, and it is happening all over the country.

You talked about the 9-11 conspiracy theories, which you are using as shorthand for all the "truther" nonsense. But technically the official theory of 9-11 is a conspiracy theory itself; that is, that 19 islamofascit idiots with some help from idiots in other contries conspired to hijack planes and fly them into buildings. So the truth is a there WAS a conspiracy or AQ idiots.

But you are like someone on 9-11, who heard the second tower had been struck and the pentagon had been struck, too, going "well, maybe its all an accident." That was technically possible at that point in time, but it wasn't a very realistic explanation. So maybe you consider all this continual "negligence" just a series of unlucky accidents. But most of us look at that and say, just as we all said when the second tower was stuck: "this is not an accident."
10.13.2008 3:23pm
Ralph Wiggum (mail):
The only conspiracy here is the conspiracy to cover up the significance of this group's fraudulent registrations and of Obama's connections to the whole mess. If this were a right-wing group there is no doubt you would be screaming bloody murder. No one can be happy with this except the party that thinks it benefits from the fraud. Let's revamp our voter registration system to make sure that all eligible citizens are able to register and vote, and let's make sure that people who are not eligible or who don't exist or who are dead cannot register or vote. And in the meantime, let the national discussion of this issue continue. After all, the polls only run 80-20 in favor of change on this.
10.13.2008 3:53pm
Mike G in Corvallis (mail):
PC wrote:
WHY does ACORN continue to hire people who cut corners and break the law, when it costs them time and money and harms their reputation?

Maybe because they are trying to rehabilitate people? I know it's a huge leap of logic, but perhaps a group that is focused on helping the poor and disadvantaged would hire some of the same.

Yes, it's a huge leap, but your motorcycle didn't make it all the way over the shark. If rehabilitation were ACORN's goal, they'd be better off if they took the money now spent on for wages and used it to give those poor folks rehabilitation training instead. They'd be better off giving the wages to those poor and disadvantaged people and telling them to not register voters, since the registrations supposedly are all individually checked by competent, trustworthy people whose time must be far more valuable that the poor folks' time. Your proposed explanation doesn't pass the smell test. Try again.

No, that's not what I meant. Has ACORN destroyed voter registrations from self-identified Republicans? I'm not asking what you "feel," I want evidence that the organization is destroying registrations based on party affiliation.

Again, you are attributing a word to me that I did not write. I said nothing about what I "feel." And I did not accuse ACORN of destroying registrations. What I asked was:

* If, as MarkField claims, ACORN performs "validity checking" of the registrations before submitting them to the local elections officials -- e.g., by sorting them into "probably good" and "probably fraudulent" piles -- just to save the officials from wasting too much effort on their own independent checking (of course), then what prevents ACORN from preferentially sorting Democratic registrations into the "probably good" pile and Republican registrations into the "probably fraudulent" pile?

I did not say that they were destroying registrations. I asked whether there could be a particular problem with their procedures ... and we already know that ACORN's procedures are flawed in other respects.

You chose to answer a question that I didn't ask. That leads me to suspect that you didn't have a good answer to the question I did ask.

I did not accuse ACORN of being a "conspiracy," and I despise the attempt to attribute that word to me with your use of quotation marks.

Are you also aware of all internet traditions? You dipped your toes into the conspiracy water when you attributed malice to ACORNs actions.

I'm aware of no "internet traditions" that make it acceptable to falsely attribute a quote.

By definition, if ACORN is deliberately committing voter registration fraud it would be a conspiracy.

PC, this is a law blog -- you'll have to do better than that. That doesn't meet the legal definition of conspiracy, nor is that what I claimed.

First, note that people in ACORN are indeed deliberately committing voter registration fraud -- they've been prosecuted and convicted.

Now, note that ACORN has procedures that incentivize its employees to individually decide to commit fraud. ACORN's leaders have maintained these procedures in spite of the fact that continuing them costs ACORN time and money and harms its reputation. Absent a plausible explanation for their policy -- which you have not provided -- I think it's reasonable to call that corruption, not conspiracy.

Dude, seriously. You are pimping a conspiracy theory. You are saying a decades old, nationwide organization is maliciously committing voter registration fraud. That means there is a conspiracy to commit a crime, and since you have no proof, it's a theory. So be a man and own up to it. Stop the pearl clutching. You believe there is a conspiracy to steal the election.

We all agree that over and over again individuals working for ACORN have committed fraud. You have noted "... ACORN hiring ex-cons on work release programs. It almost seems like ACORN has a model that is begging for controversy." (Heh. "Almost." Cute.) You have agreed that filing fake registrations "is a corruption of the process." Focus on that word you used: "corruption." Why do you refuse to admit that the people in ACORN who devised the process could be corrupt, and that their process might, by intention, be setting up its employees to individually decide to break the law?

Since you didn't answer, I'll ask again: Would you describe Jimmy Hoffa's Teamsters Union as a "conspiracy"? Would you deny that the Teamsters Union was corrupt, or had corrupt leaders?

PC, your obstinate defense of ACORN leads me to wonder whether you have something personal at stake. Do you have some connection with ACORN?
10.13.2008 4:28pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
AW.
Correct. We all make mistakes. Continuing to make the same one over and over is cause for speculation. Such speculation would include things like how tough is it to fix? Who benefits? How long has this been going on? Do we think we know of all the accidental accidents, or are there more and we just found out about a few?
Does PC, in his heart of hearts, really care?
10.13.2008 4:29pm
Mike G in Corvallis (mail):
Richard Aubrey wrote:

... with negligence aforethought ...

A perfect description of how ACORN is operating.
10.13.2008 4:38pm
PC:
PC, your obstinate defense of ACORN leads me to wonder whether you have something personal at stake. Do you have some connection with ACORN?

Oh darn. You've caught me. ACORN is actually a front for a secret society of reptilians that live at the center of the Earth. After Obama becomes president (appointed by ACORN's board of directors) he will turn the US into an Islamic Reptilian Shariaocracy. I'm merely one of their propaganda agents. We're everywhere.
10.13.2008 6:08pm
Mike G in Corvallis (mail):
Hah! Everyone knows that the reptilians are merely a front for the Grey Humanoids from Rigel.

Since you didn't answer, I'll ask again: Would you describe Jimmy Hoffa's Teamsters Union as a "conspiracy"? Would you deny that the Teamsters Union was corrupt, or had corrupt leaders?
10.13.2008 6:50pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):

According to John Fund, the Nevada office supervisor was on work-release from prison where he is serving time for identity theft.
Fund asks if ACORN is hiring specialists.

But PC will tell us there is something uncharitable about not wanting to give a felon who wants to turn his life around a chance at an honest profession. This being PC's idea of an honest profession.
10.13.2008 9:48pm
Mike G in Corvallis (mail):
It's Nevada ... Teach him to play piano and give him an honest job.
10.13.2008 10:52pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
How many Obama votes could he gin up there?
10.13.2008 10:56pm
Greg Q (mail) (www):
This is probably right, but there are still good reasons to doubt that voter fraud is widespread. Individual ineligble voters have too much to lose and very little to gain by intentionally voting illegally.

Let's say, hypothetically, that I belong to an organization that just submitted 5,000 bogus "voter registrations." Let's say, further, than I want to engage in vote fraud. So I submit "absentee voter applications" for each of those 5,000 voters, and then vote them.

How are you going to stop me from doing that? How are you even going to KNOW that I did that?


There is one, and only one, reason to oppose requiring every voter to show valid photo ID, with an address that matches the registered voting address: favoring vote fraud.

So loki13, enough w/ this BS about those evil Republicans pushing "vote fraud" fantasies: the only reason for the Democrat Party to be so vociferously opposed to voter ID laws is because the Democrat Party leaders think that they benefit from vote fraud.

You want Republicans to stop "making people angry" by talking about "vote fraud"? Great! Support Voter ID laws that will take the issue off the table.
10.14.2008 3:47am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Greg. That's a hell of a dare.
10.14.2008 8:59am