Political Philosophy

Remove all ads!

No doubt there is blatant partisanship on both sides of this issue, which clouds the real amount of occurring fraud. Nevertheless, once one looks closely at how ACORN conducts its system of voter registration, one can't help but come away with an understanding of how flawed its system is. The notion of hiring just about anyone who walks in off the street and paying them for the gross total of cards, is a surefire method of ending up with fraud. I don't think that is ACORN's intention. And it mostly does not end up with actual votes, since their workers often just go down the phonebook and copy names, just to get paid. But ACORN's system is flawed. The system needs to be reformed without supressing citizens from voting in the process.

 

Martaug, your refusal to compare the number of incidences of fraud to the numbers of actual voters doesn't really speak well of your capacity to think critically. Even if every deceased person still on the rolls were to cast a vote (and we both know that this isn't even remotely true - the number is, in fact, well below even 1% of such erroneous registrations) it likely still wouldn't be enough to actually influence an election. While asking for ID in these cases would avert instances at the polling station, purging the deceased from the rolls would actually serve to stop all such instances (an important distinction, given that most such fraud is perpetrated via absentee ballot). As I mentioned before, I have no problem with requiring photo ID in order to vote. My problem is instead with the methodology chosen by the GOP, most specifically with the insistence that the address on the ID match with the address on the voter registration. It should be good enough that the ID is valid.

 

Drew, we don't know how many people have fraudently voted as others or many times.
As far as not influencing an election
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/010908/opi_234176323.shtml

Hmmm, if the election was won by 129 votes & 1,600 phony votes were cast. . . seems like that could have decided the race one way or the other.

 

Except for the fact that this isn't actually true. For a reasonable accounting of what actually happened, you can visit Wikipedia. It's a lengthy article, so I'll let you read it yourself and then post your out of context snippets here as "proof" of democratic malfeasance. The election wasn't without it's problems, but most of those 1600 "phony" votes were actually votes that turned up in the hand re-counts which were conducted as a result of the closeness of the election and other irregularities which were turned up. It turns out that 561 ballots had been rejected due to an administrative error and 12 others were found in voting machines after the polls closed. Interestingly, none of those ballots were cast by voters whose surnames began with the letters A, B, or C. There was a further search for more ballots, and county workers discovered a tray in a warehouse with an additional 162 previously uncounted ballots, totaling 723 uncounted ballots for King County. Snohomish County discovered 224 missed ballots that had been discovered underneath mail trays. This pattern was repeated all across the state, as various counties hand counted ballots that the machines couldn't read and hand re-checked the absentee ballots that were spit out by the scanning machines.

 

Of course there is partisan bickering. And of course there are strange things happening by those who register candidates for both parties. This here is apparently about a GOP equivalent of ACORN, with the same problem as ACORN - fraud committed by their registrators.

Let's just keep in mind that, while it might be true that in a close election a small amount of fraud could make the margin of difference, it is equally true that the rejection of a much larger number of eligible voters could make a much bigger difference in the outcome. Think about the far greater impact that the rejection of 200.000 voters is certain to have, and compare it with the likely impact of 1.000 hypothetical cases of voter fraud (as bad as that would be).

 

Wow drew, are you being intentonially dense?
From the wiki article

&

Seems like the article completely backed up what i said, which part were you reading that said these 2 Facts aren't in fact Facts.

I'm pretty sure you thought i was implying that all the false votes were for one party but that would have been foolish as there was only a 390 point diference between the original vote & the last recount.
Now one of the things i do have a problem with is including ballots that don't have a clear chain of custody. The "found" hundreds of votes that were just laying around. Yeah, ok
What happened was that both parties scrambled to include all they could & the dems just happened to be better at it.
Think about it, she lost 32 of 39 counties but won the state?

 

Which you quickly did, I see. Martaug, those 1,678 were not instances of voter fraud. They were instances of felons who the state failed to purge from the rolls going out and voting. Would asking them for ID have stopped them from doing this? Do Washington drivers licenses tell you if the driver has any prior felony convictions? What reason do you have to believe that these felons would have voted differently from the rest of the population?

 

Drew, you are either making facts up or pulling them out of you butt. NOWHERE in the wiki article does it say that those 1,678 votes were by felons.
Where are you getting this info??
The reps only submitted a list of 1,135 votes that they thoughtwere by felons, deceased people And/Or people who voted twice as part of their suit.
So for you to claim that all 1,678 votes were felons not eligible to vote is nonsense. Please present facts & evidence to back this statement up or admit your mistake.

 

From Wiki:

There. The bold is mine. No more little context games, martaug, here's the whole damn section. As can be seen, the problem here was one of the state failing to properly purge its rolls, and in the vast majority of instances, asking for ID simply wouldn't have helped.

 

Drew, nowhere in that does it say that the 1,678 illegal votes were by felons. The only evidence submitted was sworn statements from 4 felons, HOWEVER, NOWHERE does it say that the 1,678 illegal votes were BY felons.

How are reading that into what is there??

Have you been imbibing today??

In fact if you look at the footnote for these numbers you will find this http://wenatcheeworld.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050607/NEWS04/506070351

So again how are you getting all of these are from felons??

 

Martaug, I'm trying to stay on topic. The grand argument here is about whether asking for ID will reduce voter fraud. By posting the entire Wiki section, I was striving to end this pointless little pissing contest and get back to a real discussion about the real issue. The important point that I have been trying to make is that only a few of those potentially* fraudulent votes would have been stopped for requiring ID at the polls, and that a few votes won't really influence an election, especially when measured against driving large numbers of voters away from the polls. I will again re-iterate that I find nothing particularly offensive with requiring ID from voters, but standards must first be put in place to ease access to ID's, create provisional ballots for voters who may have lost or misplaced their ID's on the day of the election, and for accepting out-of-state ID in the general. Further, these matters must be taken care of at some time other than right before an election. 2001 would have been a good time, 2005 would have been a good time, but now? Not a good time.

* No one has actually been charged with wrongdoing. If you'll remember, this election came back into the limelight in early 2007, when news broke that eight federal prosecutors including John McKay, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Washington, had been fired. Republicans had hoped that after the election McKay would begin a federal investigation into alleged voter fraud, but he did not; McKay stated afterward that he would not convene a grand jury for purely political reasons and emphasized he had not seen any evidence of voter fraud in the Governor's race. The fact that this highly respected republican appointee didn't see any evidence of voter fraud, let alone enough evidence to press charges, is what calls those accusations into serious question for me.

 

This appeared in Newsweek:

Pretty much what some us figured.

Source: http://www.newsweek.com/id/164722/page/1

 

Whatever drew, You were the one that stated that all of these were felons & had implied that i was stating a falsehood about the 1,600 illegal votes & that the race was won by 129 votes. After you were proved wrong you say that you are just trying to keep to the greater topic. If so why in the hell did you bring it up in the first place??

 

News round up on voter fraud

Today's news round up on voter fraud:

1. GOP Political Consultant Arrested For Voter Registration Fraud. The man's firm, Young Political Majors (YPM) has been accused of using bait-and-switch tactics across the country. Election officials and lawmakers have launched investigations into the activities of YPM workers in Florida and Massachusetts.
   
   Ironic that, for all the recent GOP-generated fuss over ACORN, it's a Republican firm against whom there's actual evidence of systemic fraud.
   
   .​
2. The Michigan GOP had announced plans to challenge voters on foreclosure lists which in return sparked a lawsuit from Democrats. The lawsuit has now been settled. It is understood that continuing the case would very likely have involved Democratic discovery into GOP files, and the Republicans apparently didn't want to go there. In return, the Democrats get to affirm that, indeed, Republicans were planning on using foreclosure lists to challenge voters, and won't do so. Michigan Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer on the settlement:
   Ouch. That was not a defeat for the R's but a rout.
   
   The R's can't possibly like that. Considering that they rather took that than letting the D's have a peek in their files, an interesting question would what exactly they might have found there. (h/t)
   
   .​
3. Last week New Mexico Republicans found 28 Suspect Ballots. Well, sort of. The matter appears to have lost a lot of it's urgency and appeal to them. They don't want to talk about it anymore. That might have to do with the fact that the 28 in question were in fact, as ACORN could prove beyond doubt, valid voters.

 

So we have fraud on both sides. Congradulations. Now anything short of a landslide for one candidate will be met with accusations of fraud from the other side. Gee, Thanks!

 

I wouldn't worry too much, Gnarff. All the daylight that has been given to administrative problems regarding elections has led to increased security and more vigilant updating of the voter rolls. Groups like YPM and ACORN are also unlikely to influence the election, since these instances of registration fraud will not lead to illegal voting. Changing someone's registration to republican (YPM's crime) isn't going to have any effect until primary season, which is some time away. There has been talk about YPM's registration changes interfering with democratic get out the vote efforts, but I'm not buying it. I've both called and canvassed for the Obama campaign, and while we aren't really knocking on the doors or calling republicans who've expressed their unequivocal support for John McCain here in Iowa City (or who have a McCain sign on their door or in their yard), we are still calling and visiting undecided republicans.

 

And that's fine. That's part of the campaign. On Election day, a representative from the one campaing called us to make sure that we got out to vote (all four of us did). That's an important part of the process.

But how close does any particular (heaven forbid, swing state) have to be before the loser cries foul for 8 years?

Am I the only one who thinks this would be much more entertaining if instead of a year and a half of Primaries then a six month campaign they just took everyone that wanted the job, herded theim into a ring ob barbed wire, hung two briefcases over the ring, handed them ladders, tables, chairs, light tubes, weed whackers, thumbtacks, and anything else they want and the winners are the two that get the brief cases. Then you open the briefcases to see who gets president and who get's vice president...

 

Gnarff,
you mistake my angle: I feel honest Schadenfreude when I read those stories, especially after the GOP's hysterical announcements over ACORN. But what I wanted to say was not so much that there is fraud on both sides - I strongly dislike that relativistic take on the issue - but rather this:

• The R's are as susceptible to be defrauded as ACORN (that's how I see fake GOP registrations) when they hire people to do voter registration for profit.
• The GOP lost an attempt to challenge votes in Michigan, in a particularly inglorious way, betraying their weak position.
• And specially this point: For the GOP to cave in so readily as in New Mexico, their accusations against ACORN must have been built on rather thin ice. Or built out of a lot of hot air. Your pick.

That's all.

 

WEll of course the one side is going to ***** about the fraudulent votes the other side are going to receive. They're politicians, which, I observe, are a cross between spoiled five year olds and feces flinging monkeys.

And now we have fraud on both sides, giving both groups of five year olds 4 to 8 years worth of temper tantrums...

 

Ok saw this on a blog by a guy named LabRat & thought is was pretty funny. Hope it passes muster(ha ha)

A Field Guide To Modern Conservatives

1)The Paleocon
Distinguishing features: The Paleocon believes in small government, traditional values, low taxes, and minimal interference in foreign affairs. In general, he believes that America started to go downhill somewhere around Woodrow Wilson, and all things being equal would prefer to repeal the twentieth century in general. He’s still absolutely outraged about progressive taxation, and especially the New Deal. He feels the Republican party abandoned conservatism somewhere around Nixon.

Where found: Generally, with a cigarette and a martini somewhere in upstate New Hampshire.

Call: “The government should deliver the mail and declare war. We just have to get them to stop doing EVERYTHING ELSE. Dammit.”

2)The Very Moral Minority
Distinguishing features: This fellow believes that faith in God and the Bible automatically translates to good government. God = good, so how could government guided by God be anything else? American society will turn right back into the garden of Eden it was in the fifties if we just get God back into every single aspect of public life. Always shocked when it turns out most other Christians don’t agree, and keep quoting something annoying about that which is Caesar’s. Oh well, he’s still right.

Where found: With very bad hair and an equally bad suit, and not infrequently, a radio station.

Call: “The Communists were atheists, and they killed a hundred million people!”

3)The Crunchy Con (Hat tip for term to National Review)
Distinguishing Features: Highly literate, usually religious (though not always Christian), and deeply rooted in small-town traditional values. Disdains pop culture, big business, big government, and big anything, including big religion. Usually does not own a TV. May or may not own a radio. Shops in Wild Oats/Trader Joe’s/Whole Foods, but entertains private fantasies of shouting “I VOTED FOR BUSH!” to see if it really would start a riot.

Where found: In organic co-ops, small churches, and small towns. Distinguishable by simultaneous presence of Birkenstocks and lack of bumper stickers.

Call: “Feed your family good food for their bodies, minds, and spirits.”

4)The Neocon
Distinguishing Features: Did you ever wonder what happened to the liberal Democrats from the Kennedy era who believed in civil rights, women’s rights, and opposing totalitarianism by force and spreading democracy the same way? Now they’re neocons. Prone to pointing out that Japan was a backwards country mired in feudalism and civil war until Admiral Perry pointed several naval cannons at them. Admit that, okay, that whole East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere episode was a setback, but then we occupied them for a couple of decades and look at them now.

Where found: At antiwar protests jeering the protestors. Fleeing from said furious protestors.

Call: “Freedom and democracy for all.”

5)The Libbertaryan
Distinguishing features: First cousin to the Paleocon with less “traditional” values. Don’t believe the government has the right to interfere with them in ANY way except to enforce contracts and have a military. They are not totally sure about the military.

Where found: In Montana or Wyoming with their family, dogs, and a sign reading “Tresspassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.”

Call: “Gimme my guns, drugs, and whores, and GET OFF MY PROPERTY.”

6)The Clone Army Con
Distinguishing features: Changes depending on the decade, but roiling disdain for “liberals” is constant.

Where found: Anywhere.

Call: “(Whatever Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage is saying this week)”

7)The South Park Conservative
Distinguishing features: Smirk. Either consciously hip or consciously unhip clothing. Tendency to burst out laughing at seemingly inappropriate moments. Joy in making people angry, especially liberals, but other conservatives will do if there aren’t any liberals in range or they just feel like a change of pace.

Where found: Nearly anywhere, but take particular delight in being conservatives in traditionally liberal outposts.

Call: *singing* “America, **** YEAH!”

8)The Moderate Conservative

Distinguishing feature: Frequently indistinguishable from Moderate Liberals.

Where found: Ubiquitous.

Call: “I have to go to work in the morning.”

I'm definitely a blend of a #5 & a #1