What can we do, now, to prevent Pubs from suppressing Dem votes in 2008?

[BrainGlutton]

I'm very disturbed by this (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16962753.htm) story, which suggests one of the principal motivations for the U.S.-attorneys-purge was to facilitate suppression of "voter fraud" in 11 key states in 2008. "Voter fraud," for those of you not familiar with the phrase, is Pubspeak for "Democrats voting," and in particular for "poor people voting." We've had several (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=315502) threads (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=307833) in the past (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=279927&highlight=voter+fraud) touching on "voter fraud," and no Doper has yet come up with any evidence for this as a real, widespread problem worthy of concern. (Republican voter intimidation, (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=277079) OTOH, is a real problem, or has been recently.)

What can we do, starting now, to make sure the 2008 elections will be free, fair and clean?

[Czarcasm]

First off, stop letting people on the other side off the hook. If they make a mistake or lie, correct them then keep an eye on them. If, after the correction, they repeat what they said before call them on it. How many times does "Golly gee, I don't see why everyone is upset about the firings-what did the admin do that was so wrong?" have to be asked and answered before we say,"Asked and answered. Quit pretending it hasn't been and move on."

[Kimstu]

We may have some more work to do identifying the exact nature and prevalence of the phenomena described as "voting fraud" and "voter intimidation". To make sure we're all on the same page, here's the Federal Election Assistance Commission's December 2006 Initial Review (http://www.eac.gov/docs/Voter%20Fraud%20&%20Intimidation%20Report%20-POSTED.pdf) (PDF) of election crimes.

[Mr. Moto]

Thanks for that link. It was quite helpful.

Especially helpful were the appendices, which illustrated numerous examples of voter fraud that were committed by Democrats as well. Problems like vote buying, fraudulent registration, double voting, and ineligible felon voting were noted.

So let's please not pretend, even on these boards, that this is a problem restricted to one party. That isn't supported by the facts. Moreover, if people are convinced that both parties are dirty in this (even if not equally dirty) they will be more likely to support measures to really make things secure and fair.

[Saint Cad]

What can we do, starting now, to make sure the 2008 elections will be free, fair and clean?

How about starting out with educating people on the mechanics of voting and provide assistance for anyone who needs help.

Oh wait! We already do that and idiots who can't read a ballot, poke a hole in a piece of paper with a metal stylus, or touch a screen in the right spot still fuck it up every year.

[Onomatopoeia]

I'm very disturbed by this (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16962753.htm) story, which suggests one of the principal motivations for the U.S.-attorneys-purge was to facilitate suppression of "voter fraud" in 11 key states in 2008. "Voter fraud," for those of you not familiar with the phrase, is Pubspeak for "Democrats voting," and in particular for "poor people voting." We've had several (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=315502) threads (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=307833) in the past (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=279927&highlight=voter+fraud) touching on "voter fraud," and no Doper has yet come up with any evidence for this as a real, widespread problem worthy of concern. (Republican voter intimidation, (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=277079) OTOH, is a real problem, or has been recently.)

What can we do, starting now, to make sure the 2008 elections will be free, fair and clean?I've had my eye on Tim Griffin since before this came out. (http://www.gregpalast.com/bushs-new-us-attorney-a-criminal/) The neocons and their lackeys can scream 'conspiracy theory' only so long before their cries are silenced by mountains of corroborating information leading to the same conclusion, that this administration and its representatives are not simply complicit, but active in the pursuit of making Karl Rove's ideal of a permanent republican majority a reality by any means, right or not, moral or not, ethical or not, discriminatory or not, legal or not.

What can we do? Impeach both Bush and Cheney, and that's just for starters. Rove needs to be called to account in a court of law and tried for his involvement in Plame-gate, Gonzo-gate and every other freaking gate that's caused near-irreparable damage to this country, its citizens, and our standing in the world in the last 6 years.

Unfortunately, I believe we're at a stage where certain actors in this administration need to be made into public examples to show what happens to those who abuse their positions and power to such an extent that it's woefully obvious they believe laws apply to everyone except them.

[Captain Carrot]

Oh wait! We already do that and idiots who can't read a ballot, poke a hole in a piece of paper with a metal stylus, or touch a screen in the right spot still fuck it up every year.The problem is not so much that voters screw up electronic ballots as that these machines leave no paper trail and are vulnerable to hacking.

Also, have you seen the Florida ballot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Voterseyeview.jpg)? Takes a while to figure out, mainly because those idiotic arrows don't point towards any holes.

[Fear Itself]

Especially helpful were the appendices, which illustrated numerous examples of voter fraud that were committed by Democrats as well. Problems like vote buying, fraudulent registration, double voting, and ineligible felon voting were noted.The difference is in degree. Voter suppression disenfranchises far more people than voter fraud could ever hope to. Yes, both parties are guilty; but the Republicans have raised it to a fine art, and make the Dems look like pikers in comparison.

[BrainGlutton]

Moreover, if people are convinced that both parties are dirty in this (even if not equally dirty) they will be more likely to support measures to really make things secure and fair.

Like this? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=307833)

[Czarcasm]

The difference is in degree. Voter suppression disenfranchises far more people than voter fraud could ever hope to. Yes, both parties are guilty; but the Republicans have raised it to a fine art, and make the Dems look like pikers in comparison.
Or to put it even simpler:
1 is a number.
10 is a number.
Just because both 1 and 10 are, without argument, numbers doesn't mean that 1=10.

[Mr. Moto]

Like this? (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=307833)

Nope. That bill addressed problems near and dear to Democrats while doing nothing to address legitimate Republican concern about the integrity of the voter registration process, among many other concerns.

Far better we look to the Commission on Federal Election Reform (http://www.american.edu/ia/cfer/), cochaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker. That did a far better job than that bill in Congress.

These recommendations are fairly straightforward and reasonable. They include having states manage voter roles, using secure ID cards as evidence of voter eligibility, and providing an auditable paper trail from voting machines.

[foolsguinea]

These recommendations are fairly straightforward and reasonable. They include having states manage voter roles, using secure ID cards as evidence of voter eligibility, and providing an auditable paper trail from voting machines.Voter roles??? Wait, do you mean "voter rolls"? Quick, define "roll" in this sense.

[Mr. Moto]

Sorry about the misspelling. Voter rolls.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

Also, have you seen the Florida ballot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Voterseyeview.jpg)? Takes a while to figure out, mainly because those idiotic arrows don't point towards any holes.Did you even bother to read the caption on that picture? Just in case you didn't, it says:The view of a butterfly ballot as seen at a rather extreme angle. Note this would not be how a voter would actually perceive the ballot in the ballot box; the angle would be much less extreme mostly negating the parallax effect.When you look at two objects in different planes at an angle, they don't line up right. Anybody without enough brains to look directly down to see how they line up shouldn't be voting.

[China Guy]

what dems can do is get the voters out and win by a landslide. then elections won't be thrown by hundreds or thousands of votes.

i'm talking a reagan-carter type victory. stuffing marginal ballots won't win a landslide like that.

[astorian]

I'm very disturbed by this (http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16962753.htm) story, which suggests one of the principal motivations for the U.S.-attorneys-purge was to facilitate suppression of "voter fraud" in 11 key states in 2008. "Voter fraud," for those of you not familiar with the phrase, is Pubspeak for "Democrats voting," and in particular for "poor people voting." We've had several (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=315502) threads (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=307833) in the past (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=279927&highlight=voter+fraud) touching on "voter fraud," and no Doper has yet come up with any evidence for this as a real, widespread problem worthy of concern. (Republican voter intimidation, (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=277079) OTOH, is a real problem, or has been recently.)

What can we do, starting now, to make sure the 2008 elections will be free, fair and clean?


There's NOTHING you can do! We Evil Republicans control everything! You can only cower in fear, as we destroy you all! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

For crying out loud, you saw in 2006 just how omnipotent the Republicans are.

But if you enjoying peeeing in your pants, go right ahead, Glutton.

[Czarcasm]

There's NOTHING you can do! We Evil Republicans control everything! You can only cower in fear, as we destroy you all! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

For crying out loud, you saw in 2006 just how omnipotent the Republicans are.

But if you enjoying peeeing in your pants, go right ahead, Glutton.
Ahh, the old "Since we didn't get away with it this time, that proves we don't cheat!" gambit. Actually, it just proves you screwed up and pissed off too many people.

[Saint Cad]

How about putting Christine Gregoire and the King County Canvassing Board in charge of running the election?

[Askance]

... no Doper has yet come up with any evidence for this as a real, widespread problem worthy of concern.Greg Palast, on the other hand, has (http://www.amazon.com/Armed-Madhouse-Afraid-Floats-Dispatches/dp/0525949682/ref=pd_bbs_2/104-5954669-6176712?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174975057&sr=8-2).

[Kimstu]

Askance, I think it's specifically "voting fraud"---i.e., people voting when/where they're not entitled to---that BrainGlutton says isn't documented as a serious problem. Palast, on the other hand, seems to concentrate on the issue of "vote suppression" or "voter intimidation"---i.e., people not being allowed to vote, or discouraged from voting, when they are entitled to. BrainGlutton agrees with Palast and you that vote suppression is definitely a documented serious problem.

[Rigamarole]

Help, help! I'm being suppressed!

[Sage Rat]

The problem is not so much that voters screw up electronic ballots as that these machines leave no paper trail and are vulnerable to hacking.
Properly made, balloting machines would be proof against hacking and leave a perfectly good (electronic) paper trail. Overall it should be more secure and difficult to fudge with than paper.

If the machines aren't being properly made, it's because neither of the parties want them to be.

[Captain Carrot]

Did you even bother to read the caption on that picture? Just in case you didn't, it says:When you look at two objects in different planes at an angle, they don't line up right. Anybody without enough brains to look directly down to see how they line up shouldn't be voting.
Right, but everything on that ballot was on the same plane. The arrows on that paper point to the same holes on that paper no matter what angle your perspective is. I did read the caption, by the way.

If the machines aren't being properly made, it's because neither of the parties want them to be.
Or because, you know, the only party in charge at the time wanted them to be. Did you forget when the head of Diebold, the single largest maker of electronic voting machines (IIRC), pledged to deliver Ohio to Bush? That doesn't seem impartial to me.

[An Arky]

I think we'll get completely free and fair elections when we get real campaign finance reform, which is to say, I'm not exactly standing here tapping my foot in breathless anticipation. There are too many very powerful folks who seem to like it this way.

[BobLibDem]

These recommendations are fairly straightforward and reasonable. They include having states manage voter roles, using secure ID cards as evidence of voter eligibility, and providing an auditable paper trail from voting machines.

The trouble with some of these straightforward and reasonable Republican proposals is that they are designed to suppress votes. Things like making the voter go a long distance to get his ID or have the hours for getting the ID such that the hourly first shift worker has no chance to ever get it.

Properly made, balloting machines would be proof against hacking and leave a perfectly good (electronic) paper trail. Overall it should be more secure and difficult to fudge with than paper.

The people in charge of making these machines are not interested in conducting honest elections. It isn't a matter of neither party wanting it to work right, as evidenced by the partisanship expressed by Diebold.

Electronic voting is a solution in search of a problem. Any time you take away from creating a tangible physical record of each and every vote that can be counted and recounted and counted again over and over, you're creating the potential for fraud. Instead of competing with ideas, elections could be decided by which side has the better hackers and the will to use them.

[Sage Rat]

Electronic voting is a solution in search of a problem. Any time you take away from creating a tangible physical record of each and every vote that can be counted and recounted and counted again over and over, you're creating the potential for fraud. Instead of competing with ideas, elections could be decided by which side has the better hackers and the will to use them.
Which is of course you would rather have your bank doing all of its money tracking and routing solely through people power.... :dubious:

But pretty much you can either buy into the party rhetoric or you can trust a programmer. As a programmer, all I can say is what I said. An electronic system that is properly made will always be superior to a human one. Hard drives are physical records, and everything from the touch screen to the hard drive and up to the wire can be perfectly well tamper proofed and inaccesible to anyone who shouldn't have access. And data on the wire can be encrypted beyond anything crackable by modern means, if so desired.

Identifying unique voters and finding a third party to run the election are the only sticking points. Minus those and you're up a creek regardless of anything. Really we should be asking Switzerland or someone to oversee and run our elections.

[BobLibDem]

Which is of course you would rather have your bank doing all of its money tracking and routing solely through people power.... :dubious:

But pretty much you can either buy into the party rhetoric or you can trust a programmer. As a programmer, all I can say is what I said. An electronic system that is properly made will always be superior to a human one. Hard drives are physical records, and everything from the touch screen to the hard drive and up to the wire can be perfectly well tamper proofed and inaccesible to anyone who shouldn't have access. And data on the wire can be encrypted beyond anything crackable by modern means, if so desired.

Identifying unique voters and finding a third party to run the election are the only sticking points. Minus those and you're up a creek regardless of anything. Really we should be asking Switzerland or someone to oversee and run our elections.

Castro has volunteered to oversee our elections, perhaps we should have taken him up on the offer.

I'm not a programmer, but I work enough with databases and applications that I don't trust them. There will always be a back door for someone to exploit. I have no doubt that the system COULD be made to work (for example, ATMs have handled transactions error free for years) but if you can't guarantee that the programmers don't have an agenda there is no way to trust what they come up with.

[Mr. Moto]

The trouble with some of these straightforward and reasonable Republican proposals is that they are designed to suppress votes. Things like making the voter go a long distance to get his ID or have the hours for getting the ID such that the hourly first shift worker has no chance to ever get it.

Yeah, it was sooooo evil and Republican that Jimmy Carter signed off on it. Not to mention that the commission included Tom Daschle, Lee Hamilton, and the former president of the National Council of La Raza.

Did you even bother to read my link?

[BobLibDem]

As a matter of fact, I did read the summary of recommendations. I guess I'm not as good at ignoring a Baker Commission report as Bush is.

Regarding voting IDs:


2.5.1 To ensure that persons presenting themselves at the polling place are the ones on the registration list, the Commission recommends that states require voters to use the REAL ID card, which was mandated in a law signed by the President in May 2005.The card includes a person’s full legal name, date of birth, a signature (captured as a digital image), a photograph, and the person’s Social Security number. This card should be modestly adapted for voting purposes to indicate on the front or back whether the individual is a U.S. citizen. States should provide an EAC-template ID with a photo to non-drivers free of charge.


In theory, quite innocent. But in practice, some people are going to have a lot more difficulty getting this card than others. This is swatting the fly and ignoring the elephant. The electoral fraud in undercounting votes or distributing voting machines or manipulating the numbers exceeds by several orders of magnitude the problem of fraudulent voters, but Republicans continue to focus exclusively on the least of the issues.

[Mr. Moto]

That's hardly the least of my focus. I am also concerned about the problem of registration drive fraud of the type practiced by groups such as ACORN in past years. I am concerned about double voting, facilitated by the poor quality of voter registration rolls. I am concerned about vote buying, which led to convictions in East St. Louis, and election day dirty tricks, which led to convictions in Milwaukee.

I am in particular concerned about absentee ballots, which have proved to be a massive source of election headaches and fraud. They led to an overturned mayoral election in Miami in 1998, and in my old hometown a former congressman used them to pressure nursing home patients to support his wife for a local post. He got six months probation and community service for that stunt.

[Hentor the Barbarian]

That's hardly the least of my focus. I am also concerned about the problem of registration drive fraud of the type practiced by groups such as ACORN in past years. I am concerned about double voting, facilitated by the poor quality of voter registration rolls. I am concerned about vote buying, which led to convictions in East St. Louis, and election day dirty tricks, which led to convictions in Milwaukee.

I am in particular concerned about absentee ballots, which have proved to be a massive source of election headaches and fraud. They led to an overturned mayoral election in Miami in 1998, and in my old hometown a former congressman used them to pressure nursing home patients to support his wife for a local post. He got six months probation and community service for that stunt.Funny thing is that I would like to end those problems, as well as end the type of "management of voter rolls" that Florida engaged in in 1999-2000. Your anecdotes don't at all make it clear that you are not still jumping up and down in concern about the maple tree and ignoring the redwoods.

I do want to make sure that other people, people in charge of things, aren't pushing bogus concerns like yours in a partisan way to influence elections. It sure looks like they are, and it sure looks like you could not care less about that.

How do you decide which type of fraud and abuse to be concerned about and which to disregard?

[Mr. Moto]

A good solution would be to implement the recommendations of the bipartisan commission in toto. That way everybody gets reforms important to them, nobody feels their ox is being gored too much, and the public feels the system overall has been strengthened.

As it stands now, Democrats aren't doing enough to tighten up registration and identification issues, Republicans are too blase about machine integrity, and both sides look the other way when their side commits outright fraud.

[Czarcasm]

A good solution would be to implement the recommendations of the bipartisan commission in toto. That way everybody gets reforms important to them, nobody feels their ox is being gored too much, and the public feels the system overall has been strengthened.

As it stands now, Democrats aren't doing enough to tighten up registration and identification issues, Republicans are too blase about machine integrity, and both sides look the other way when their side commits outright fraud.
Of course the Republicans know that insisting that all reforms, whether needed or not, be implimented at the same time pretty much guarantees that none of them get implimented, which suits them just fine.

[BobLibDem]

As it stands now, Democrats aren't doing enough to tighten up registration and identification issues, Republicans are too blase about machine integrity, and both sides look the other way when their side commits outright fraud.

I'll buy that. If there was a way to clean up registration and identification without disenfranchising people, I'd go for it. It's a small problem in my opinion, but if it would get some action on things like machine distribution and integrity I'd take that deal. Better to fix both issues than neither.

[Evil One]

Regarding machine distribution, how about a federal law mandating one voting machine per X number of people in a given area?

[Mr. Moto]

I wouldn't see that as necessarily a solution. It might ignore actual voters and voting rates. It would also not take into account interesting new technologies such as voting centers that have been successful in some places. These concentrate polling technology near transportation, retail, and employment hubs, and employ economies of scale to make polling easier and more efficient.

[villa]

I honestly don't understand this obsession with voting machines and increasing the technology involved. Sheet of paper and a pencil works pretty damn well. Supervise the counts out the wazoo with representatives of all parties. Yes, results might take longer to come out, but given that there appears to be zero trust in the programmers etc for these machines, is a delayed result that much of a problem?

[gonzomax]

Something called he Bradblog has covered this subject for about 5 years now. They have many articles and studies available on line, http://www.bradblog.com/

[BrainGlutton]

How about putting Christine Gregoire and the King County Canvassing Board in charge of running the election?

:confused:

[BrainGlutton]

Greg Palast, on the other hand, has (http://www.amazon.com/Armed-Madhouse-Afraid-Floats-Dispatches/dp/0525949682/ref=pd_bbs_2/104-5954669-6176712?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174975057&sr=8-2).

Yeah, I've read that book. (Have you?) It says (among many other things) what Kimstu, in the post right after yours, says it says.

[BrainGlutton]

Help, help! I'm being suppressed!

Bloody peasant!

[BrainGlutton]

If there was a way to clean up registration and identification without disenfranchising people, I'd go for it.

To start with, the "Real ID" card would have to be issued free to the voter. Otherwise, you've got a de facto poll tax.

[marshmallow]

The Democrats need to suppress the same amount of Republican votes as the Pubs do for Dem votes. Then all will be fair and balanced!

[Captain Carrot]

The Democrats need to suppress the same amount of Republican votes as the Pubs do for Dem votes. Then all will be fair and balanced!
Not quite -- gotta do it in the same areas. If Republicans suppress votes in Florida, Democrats doing the same in Texas won't accomplish hardly anything.

[Gary "Wombat" Robson]

Right, but everything on that ballot was on the same plane. The arrows on that paper point to the same holes on that paper no matter what angle your perspective is. I did read the caption, by the way.Oh, go back and look at the picture. Then re-read the caption (since you clearly didn't understand it). Then take a look at one of those ballots from directly above. There was absolutely no ambiguity unless you put it there intentionally.

If the machines aren't being properly made, it's because neither of the parties want them to be.Or because, you know, the only party in charge at the time wanted them to be. Did you forget when the head of Diebold, the single largest maker of electronic voting machines (IIRC), pledged to deliver Ohio to Bush? That doesn't seem impartial to me.I hope you are aware that on the SDMB it is forbidden to edit your quote boxes to make it appear that people said something they didn't. Sage Rat said that, not me. Don't change attributions in the edit box!

Oh, and by the way, cite?

[Captain Carrot]

I hope you are aware that on the SDMB it is forbidden to edit your quote boxes to make it appear that people said something they didn't. Sage Rat said that, not me. Don't change attributions in the edit box!
Ack! Oops! I responded to both of you and forgot that there were multiple people involved. My mistake!

Oh, and by the way, cite?
Certainly! From CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/07/28/sunday/main632436.shtml):
'The rumors began with this letter from Diebold's CEO, Wally Odell, who was moonlighting as a Republican fundraiser. In his invitation to a benefit for Bush last August, he wrote, "I am committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president."'
Oh, go back and look at the picture. Then re-read the caption (since you clearly didn't understand it). Then take a look at one of those ballots from directly above. There was absolutely no ambiguity unless you put it there intentionally.
Again, my mistake. Looked at other pictures, and it is pretty clear.

[Bricker]

The trouble with some of these straightforward and reasonable Republican proposals is that they are designed to suppress votes. .
.
.
The people in charge of making these machines are not interested in conducting honest elections. It isn't a matter of neither party wanting it to work right, as evidenced by the partisanship expressed by Diebold.


This doesn't make sense. Diebold supports the Republican party, so therefore the Republican party doesn't want voting to work right?

Look, you (I assume) are strongly in favor of the Democrats winning across the board in 2008. And I further assume you would absolutely reject being a part of any plan or scheme to overcount or undercount votes to make that happen. Right? That is, you are capable of simultaneously being a strong advocate for a political party's success and and a strong advocate of an honest election. And to the extent that the two come in conflict, you wouldn't pause an instant before choosing the honest election over the political party.

So -- why can you be credited with this appraoch, but not the CEO of Diebold?

[BrainGlutton]

This doesn't make sense. Diebold supports the Republican party, so therefore the Republican party doesn't want voting to work right?

No. Diebold supports the Republican Party, therefore Diebold doesn't want voting to work right. Neither does the party, but we have plenty of other evidence of that.

[Bricker]

No. Diebold supports the Republican Party, therefore Diebold doesn't want voting to work right. Neither does the party, but we have plenty of other evidence of that.

Nor does that follow. I support the Republican Party and I assure you I want voting to work right.

[Mr. Moto]

By the reasoning of some in this thread, I could point to the antics of ACORN, the vote fraud cases in East St. Louis, the activists with ties to elected Democratic officials in Milwaukee who sabotaged Republican GOTV efforts - and conclude that the entire Democratic Party has an interest in sabotaged elections.

That wouldn't be at all logical, so I don't see where you folks can get off the hook making statements like you do, especially with so little evidence that it is a systematic operation.

[Steve MB]

Look, you (I assume) are strongly in favor of the Democrats winning across the board in 2008. And I further assume you would absolutely reject being a part of any plan or scheme to overcount or undercount votes to make that happen. Right? That is, you are capable of simultaneously being a strong advocate for a political party's success and and a strong advocate of an honest election. And to the extent that the two come in conflict, you wouldn't pause an instant before choosing the honest election over the political party.

So -- why can you be credited with this appraoch, but not the CEO of Diebold?
Because BobLibDem is not in a position that gives him an inside track for manipulating the system, and therefore does not receive the special scrutiny that naturally falls upon someone who is. I'm sure that you can see why (to take a corresponding situation) it would have been inappropriate to entrust the blood-sample tests in the OJ Simpson case to someone who had declared that Simpson was a victim of The Man, or that he was proof that football players just can't be trusted to behave themselves.

[Bricker]

Because BobLibDem is not in a position that gives him an inside track for manipulating the system, and therefore does not receive the special scrutiny that naturally falls upon someone who is. I'm sure that you can see why (to take a corresponding situation) it would have been inappropriate to entrust the blood-sample tests in the OJ Simpson case to someone who had declared that Simpson was a victim of The Man, or that he was proof that football players just can't be trusted to behave themselves.

There is a world of difference between "special scrutiny" and the absolute declaration that wrongdoing has occurred and is being contemplated for the future. Anyone with an "inside track" deserves special scrutiny, even if they have announced they will be scrupulously neutral. My objection is the distance we travelled from "special scrutiny" to "hang the bastard."

[Scylla]

What can we do, now, to prevent Pubs from suppressing Dem votes in 2008?

The question as asked demonstrates knee-jerk partisanship, and can be dismissed out of hand.

If one were to care about "vote suppression" and how to prevent it, than I think that might be a legitimate topic of discussion among reasonable people.

Since the OP only cares specifically about the suppression of Dem votes by Pubs, I suppose the converse is somehow ok. I guess Dem votes need to be protected but it's ok to suppress Pub ones. Dem votes must be worth more.

Clearly the question ignores the legitimate concern of protecting the process, and is simply a gambit for gaining advantage in a context outside of ethical or moral concerns.

Such attitudes are a part of the very problem that leads to such egregious acts as voter suppression.

[Voyager]

There is a world of difference between "special scrutiny" and the absolute declaration that wrongdoing has occurred and is being contemplated for the future. Anyone with an "inside track" deserves special scrutiny, even if they have announced they will be scrupulously neutral. My objection is the distance we travelled from "special scrutiny" to "hang the bastard."
The conflict of interest statements I sign for my job, and when I do work for the government, go beyond "special scrutiny," and say that I cannot participate in certain activities while remaining employed. I don't think it is too much to ask those with significant involvement in the mechanisms of voting from taking part in partisan political activities, and it is not too much to ask for state officials involved in regulating elections from taking part in partisan activities - like leading an election committee - for that election.I'm sure both Democrats and Republicans have done this. This may be accomplished by the person recusing him or herself from any participation in regulating the election, which might be necessary if they are running for office.

Does this sound reasonable?

[villa]

The question as asked demonstrates knee-jerk partisanship, and can be dismissed out of hand.

If one were to care about "vote suppression" and how to prevent it, than I think that might be a legitimate topic of discussion among reasonable people.

Since the OP only cares specifically about the suppression of Dem votes by Pubs, I suppose the converse is somehow ok. I guess Dem votes need to be protected but it's ok to suppress Pub ones. Dem votes must be worth more.

Clearly the question ignores the legitimate concern of protecting the process, and is simply a gambit for gaining advantage in a context outside of ethical or moral concerns.

Such attitudes are a part of the very problem that leads to such egregious acts as voter suppression.

That's not necessarily true, Scylla. I'd argue that the most effective way of preventing problems with the electoral system is for each side to scrutinize the other like hell. It's up to Democrats to make sure Republicans don't suppress votes, and Republicans to make sure Democrats don't do it. It's always worked pretty well in counts/elections in which I have played a role.

[Bricker]

The conflict of interest statements I sign for my job, and when I do work for the government, go beyond "special scrutiny," and say that I cannot participate in certain activities while remaining employed. I don't think it is too much to ask those with significant involvement in the mechanisms of voting from taking part in partisan political activities, and it is not too much to ask for state officials involved in regulating elections from taking part in partisan activities - like leading an election committee - for that election.I'm sure both Democrats and Republicans have done this. This may be accomplished by the person recusing him or herself from any participation in regulating the election, which might be necessary if they are running for office.

Does this sound reasonable?

Sure.

But since those strictures do not currently exist for CEOs of companies that make vote-counting machines, it is not reasonable to say, "Because Wally Odell failed to act thusly, we can safely assume that he illegally tinkered with election vote counts."

[BrainGlutton]

The question as asked demonstrates knee-jerk partisanship, and can be dismissed out of hand.

If one were to care about "vote suppression" and how to prevent it, than I think that might be a legitimate topic of discussion among reasonable people.

Since the OP only cares specifically about the suppression of Dem votes by Pubs, I suppose the converse is somehow ok. I guess Dem votes need to be protected but it's ok to suppress Pub ones. Dem votes must be worth more.

We have evidence of the Pubs acting, systematically, to suppress potential Dem votes.

If you have any evidence of Dems acting to suppress Pub votes -- bring it!

Clearly the question ignores the legitimate concern of protecting the process . . .

:dubious: Not at all. Quite the contrary.

Such attitudes are a part of the very problem that leads to such egregious acts as voter suppression.

No. No, they're not.

[Apos]

I think it's hard to deny that the greatest risk of vote fraud is from electronic voting itself, where it is apparently possible to alter huge amounts of votes without anyone every knowing about it. Most of the other examples of claimed fraud have simply failed to pan out on closer inspection, even in the big cited cases. The voting dead people turn up alive, the huge scandals turn up a single case of double voting, and that by mistake, and so on.

Having personally worked on campaigns in which I WAS the Democratic party (and hence have a pretty good idea whether or not I tried to commit fraud), and in which the Republican party very actively sought to suppress and make as difficult as possible for people to vote (only in high DPI districts, of course, though now they "microtarget"), it's going to take a lot to convince me that this is really a bipartisan issue.

I spent several days tracking down people who had their right to vote challenged in court hearings they couldn't even afford to attend (because they were generally held on workdays) and most never even had heard or read the notices that they had been challenged. The end result of my efforts was a boatload of angry citizens showing up for their hearing dates in court and the local Republican lawyer that the party had roped into signing off on the challenges nearly bursting into tears when the judge tore into her for filing what amounted to baseless challenges (I think she was genuinely innocent: she was just a lousy lawyer who was assured by her party that what she was doing was fighting fraud).

What happened in counties where no one was putting in this sort of effort, of which there were many, or the people who just said "to hell with this, who cares, I won't vote anyway if its such a big deal?" I don't know.

Bricker's fun little Virginian Republican party that he wines and dines with planned to bus in people from out of state to stand around polling places in quasi-policey uniforms and harass people about whether they had all the legal affairs of voting straight, (coincidentally this was planned to happen only in AA districts, where you wouldn't think the Republican party would want to be so considerate as to help that bloc of voters to vote). This, of course, was the downgraded version from simply sending police officers to patrol polling locations in AA districts, which they are no longer allowed to do thanks to a court order.

It wasn't MY party that almost pathetically handed out ballot slates to AA voters claiming that local Republican candidates were the endorsed Democrats (a trick they apparently tried again to no avail in Maryland). And so on.

So again, its going to take some convincing.

[ElvisL1ves]

Sure.

But since those strictures do not currently exist for CEOs of companies that make vote-counting machines, it is not reasonable to say, "Because Wally Odell failed to act thusly, we can safely assume that he illegally tinkered with election vote counts."It IS, however, completely reasonable to suspect the possibility, based not only on that statement, but on government voting officials' being necessarily less knowledgeable about what it would take to rig an election, and on demonstrated count errors being very far from evenly distributed from random.

Didn't you just finish saying that you want voting to work right?

Or, when it would work against the party you said you support (in the very same sentence), is it necessary to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt before even doing a good-faith investigation? :dubious:

[Mr. Moto]

It wasn't MY party that almost pathetically handed out ballot slates to AA voters claiming that local Republican candidates were the endorsed Democrats (a trick they apparently tried again to no avail in Maryland). And so on.

So again, its going to take some convincing.

This was your party, wasn't it? (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/ils/press/2006/Feb/02062006_EllisLewissentencing.pdf)

KELVIN ELLIS, age 56, of Fairview Heights, Illinois, was sentenced to a term of 54
months imprisonment, a fine of $2500, a $200 special assessment, and a three year term of
supervised release to follow his incarceration. In June 2005, ELLIS, was convicted following a 17
day jury trial of one count of conspiring with others to buy votes and one count of aiding and
abetting vote buying. According to Assistant United States Attorneys Michael Carr and James
Cutchin, who prosecuted the case, evidence adduced at trial showed that ELLIS was the elected
Democratic Precinct Committeeman for the 25 Precinct in East St. Louis and that he and certain th
other Democratic precinct committeemen conspired with each other and with other precinct workers
to pay voters for voting in the 2004 election in amounts ranging from $5 to $10 per vote.
Specifically, the evidence showed that codefendant CHARLES POWELL, Jr., who was the
Chairman of the East St. Louis Democratic Party, used three precinct committeemen meetings in
October 2004 to instruct East St. Louis’ Democratic precinct committeemen to use money obtained
from the St. Clair County Democratic Party to pay voters for voting in the election. The evidence
showed that the three races that the conspirators were attempting to influence were the races for
President of the United States, Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court, and Chair of the St. Clair
County Board of Commissioners. POWELL was also convicted by the same jury of conspiring to
buy votes and is scheduled for sentencing on February 13, 2006, in East St. Louis.

The other people sentenced in this scandal were all elected Democratic precinct committeemen and a precinct volunteer.

[don't ask]

Well you guys have to rise up and resist Mugabe's attempts to rig the election.

Oh, sorry.

[Mr. Moto]

It wasn't MY party that almost pathetically handed out ballot slates to AA voters claiming that local Republican candidates were the endorsed Democrats (a trick they apparently tried again to no avail in Maryland). And so on.

So again, its going to take some convincing.

This was your party, wasn't it? (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20060121/ai_n16015652)

After a two-week felony trial culminating with notes from a conflicted jury, four Kerry-Edwards campaign workers including the sons of U.S. Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) and former Acting Mayor Marvin Pratt had their charges in the Election Day 2004 tire-slashing reduced to misdemeanors and accepted the deal.

The fifth Democratic staffer accused of crippling Republican vans won a jury acquittal by sticking with a fight against the felony charge.

...All five defendants had been charged with damaging 40 tires on 25 rented vans parked outside Republican Party offices on W. Capitol Drive, hours before they were to be deployed for electioneering.

I think your protestations of Democratic innocence are a bit misplaced, and I haven't been claiming special Republican virtue in this thread. So why don't we apply our energies to fixing the system in general, as I suggested above.

Otherwise, you'll just shout fraud at people who will shout fraud back at you, and nothing will get done.

[Bricker]

Bricker's fun little Virginian Republican party that he wines and dines with planned to bus in people from out of state to stand around polling places in quasi-policey uniforms and harass people about whether they had all the legal affairs of voting straight, (coincidentally this was planned to happen only in AA districts, where you wouldn't think the Republican party would want to be so considerate as to help that bloc of voters to vote). This, of course, was the downgraded version from simply sending police officers to patrol polling locations in AA districts, which they are no longer allowed to do thanks to a court order.


You may personally hold whatever beliefs you please. But when you start to urge that we all, as a society, should adopt practices or measures you're going to need to do a little better than personal anecdotes. I can show you plenty of cites of Democrats actually convicted of vote fraud crime, which to my way of thinking is a damn sight better than your claims of "I saw such-and-so happen" -- not to impugn your honesty, but just to point out that for a neutral observer, surely you agree that a criminal conviction carries more persuasive weight some guy's story.

[Apos]

You may personally hold whatever beliefs you please. But when you start to urge that we all, as a society, should adopt practices or measures you're going to need to do a little better than personal anecdotes. I can show you plenty of cites of Democrats actually convicted of vote fraud crime, which to my way of thinking is a damn sight better than your claims of "I saw such-and-so happen" -- not to impugn your honesty, but just to point out that for a neutral observer, surely you agree that a criminal conviction carries more persuasive weight some guy's story.

We can cite local incidents here and there on both sides of the aisle as to elements of foul play (one of the guys that ran the Senate side of Bush's machine in 2004 is currently in jail, and its now possible that more would be if the Justice Department hadn't terminated the investigation in one of the growing number of cases in which it looks like political pressure was exerted on US Attorneys): that's simply dodging the issue. But I'm talking about what is standard practice in virtually every campaign I've worked on, which is the issue of voter suppression vs. the claims of systematic voter fraud. The former is common practice: virtually every election finds some new systematic Republican program to discourage people from voting and make it as difficult as possible. The latter is largely ephemeral, with scattered cases here and there with no coordinated structure.

It's also worth noting that "my party" referred to the campaigns I was working on, wherein I had a pretty darn good view of whether we undertook any pushing for voter fraud. I also happened to have a pretty good view of what the Republican practice was.

[Steve MB]

I can show you plenty of cites of Democrats actually convicted of vote fraud crime
And you can be shown plenty of cases of Republicans actually convicted of vote suppression crime (www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2007/03/20/nh_dems_want_fresh_look_at_phone_jamming).
The scheme devised by state and national Republicans jammed local Democratic ride-to-the-polls and a nonpartisan get-out-the-vote phone bank for about 90 minutes on Election Day 2002, the year of a hotly contested U.S. Senate race between then-Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat, and then-U.S. Rep. John Sununu, a Republican, who won. The case resulted in four criminal convictions, including that of strategist James Tobin, of Bangor, Maine, who was New England chairman of President Bush's re-election campaign two years later.

[Apos]

Here's a pretty good article from a career civil rights lawyer who worked under both Republicans and Democratic administrations testifying to the way in which this issue has been systematically politicized:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rich29mar29,0,3371050.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

Here's another discounting the claim of widespread voter fraud:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-rich29mar29,0,3371050.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail

Which notes:

But at least 11 percent of voting-age Americans, disproportionately elderly and minority voters, lack the necessary papers. Required documentation such as naturalization paperwork can cost as much as $200. By contrast, when the poll tax was declared unconstitutional in 1966, it was $1.50 ($8.97 in 2007 dollars).

[MovieMogul]

Great article, Apos. Some key excerpts:Under the Bush administration, however, all that changed. Over the last six years, this Justice Department has ignored the advice of its staff and skewed aspects of law enforcement in ways that clearly were intended to influence the outcome of elections.

It has notably shirked its legal responsibility to protect voting rights. From 2001 to 2006, no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African American or Native American voters. U.S. attorneys were told instead to give priority to voter fraud cases, which, when coupled with the strong support for voter ID laws, indicated an intent to depress voter turnout in minority and poor communities.....

Missouri had one of the closest Senate races in the country last November, and a week before the election, Schlozman brought four voter fraud indictments against members of an organization representing poor and minority people. This blatantly contradicted the department's long-standing policy to wait until after an election to bring such indictments because a federal criminal investigation might affect the outcome of the vote. The timing of the Missouri indictments could not have made the administration's aims more transparent.

This administration is also politicizing the career staff of the Justice Department. Outright hostility to career employees who disagreed with the political appointees was evident early on. Seven career managers were removed in the civil rights division. I personally was ordered to change performance evaluations of several attorneys under my supervision. I was told to include critical comments about those whose recommendations ran counter to the political will of the administration and to improve evaluations of those who were politically favored.
:sigh: What's most encouraging is how these DoJ anecdotes are coming from Republicans, so the hue & cry about "grandstanding" & "political theater" & "fishing expedition" can be refuted, since the only way to do so is further malign the integrity of GOPers whose commitment is to country first, party second. Here's hoping more rays of sunshine are coming....

[What the .... ?!?!]

My friends in the VRWC assure me that there is nothing that you can do !!!

Your only hope is to counter it by say....... raising lots of money for ACORN.

[BobLibDem]

Mr. Rich's story should dominate the news and he should be telling this to congressional committees carried live on every network. But the Republican media won't be picking up on this. We'll have a better chance of seeing another report that Anna Nicole is still dead than of seeing this get any significant airtime. If it isn't in the media, it doesn't exist. I'd like to see Hillary and Obama and Edwards beating the drums for this but I'm not holding my breath.

[ArizonaTeach]

If you have any evidence of Dems acting to suppress Pub votes -- bring itSure. (http://www.politicalgateway.com/main/columns/read.html?col=434)
Ohio Republicans called and told the election is a day later.
Florida Court rules Democrat flyers given to Republicans intimidating and misrepresentative
Ohio Court rules moveon.org intimidating and harassing voters
GOP volunteers attacked in Philidelphia
AFL-CIO coordinates attacks on Republicans in Orlando

And then there's ACORN. (http://www.epionline.org/study_detail.cfm?sid=78)
The NAACP's crack for votes (http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041019/NEWS09/410190343) policy.
Wisconsin's Kerry-leaning voter fraud. (http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001262.htm)
And of course what was mentioned upthread.

Look, if you think the Democrats' hands are clean you're deluding yourself. Simple as that.

[elucidator]

Wow! That Toldeo Blade article is a blockbuster! 124 false affidavits! One hundred twenty-four! Gasp! The sheer massiveness, an avalanche of turpitiude, a crushing wave of Democrat skullduggery, swamping the Republicans with a tsunami of one hundred twenty four false affidavits!

"Landslide Lyndon" would be proud! We should all be grateful to the Toledo Blade for its courage in staring down the fierce wrath of the Democrat machine and their brutal grasp on power, thwarting the imperial designs of the NAACP and the perfidy etc. etc.

Oh, wait. Youi weren't kidding, were you?

[elucidator]

Michelle Malkin? Maybe you were kidding after all. Kinda hope so.

[BobLibDem]

Oh, please. The ACVR isn't non-partisan. It was founded by Thor Hearne and Jim Dyke, two Republican pols. Hearne was National General Counsel for Bush/Cheney 04 and Dyke was RNC Communications Director and also worked in Cheney's office. This sham group is debunked up one side of the web and down the other.

[ArizonaTeach]

Oh, sorry, I thought the standard of proof was "maybe kinda sorta with the possibility of wrongdoing but not really proven" that was being thrown around. Yes, when I googled "Democratic voter fraud" those are the ones that came up first. So, the ACVR reported ACTUAL COURT CASES AND DECISIONS (which is what I noted), but it's still dismissed? A person working to register Democrats commits fraud and it's still dismissed. Michelle Malkin submits proof that there was fraud in Wisconsin but it's dismissed because she's Michelle Malkin? Okee doke. elucidator even acknowledges that fraud took place, but does't feel it's important. BobLibDem believes in the "Republican media," so I have no idea what sources will satisfy him.

But fine.
Topeka Capital-Journal, 11/12/02:Kansas Democratic Party releases flyer that encourages illegal voting. (http://cjonline.com/stories/111202/bre_agrace.shtml) (registration may be required)
New York Daily News: 46,000 illegal voters in NY and Florida - 68% Dem, 12% Rep (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200410/ai_n9460105)
DNC makes fake, impersonated phone calls claiming Schwarzkopf endorses Kerry (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/11/1/202130.shtml)
New Jersey machines pre-select Democratic candidate. (http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=elections&id=4737362)
And again, the things Mr. Moto cited. Is seriously the best you can respond is saying, "Michelle Malkin? Please."

Look, I'm not even defending the Republicans here. I'm just tired of hypocrisy and a statement likeIf you have any evidence of Dems acting to suppress Pub votes -- bring it! needs to be responded to, and if you can't see that then you're being intellectually dishonest.

[elucidator]

I've thought it over. I'm going to stick with "Michelle Malkin? Please."

[Mr. Moto]

This is why I supported the approach I did - that the commission recommendations be adopted in their entirety. Otherwise you just have this kind of partisan sniping.

Does anyone here have a problem with these recommendations?

[ArizonaTeach]

Eh, I've realized it's not worth the time. I realize that I'm actually off topic by talking about voter fraud rather than voter suppression, which I apologize for. :smack: So, enjoy.

And elucidator, I'm not buying the fact that you actually thought about it one bit! :cool:

[Mr. Moto]

I don't think it is off-topic in the least. I think anything done by either side to screw around with the electoral process lessens public faith in the process, increases cynicism, and encourages hatred of elected officials and rejection of their legitimacy.

That is why it is misguided to ignore vote fraud cases, no matter their severity. The public needs to know that the system is ironclad.

[BrainGlutton]

Does anyone here have a problem with these recommendations?

Not at all -- so long as the "Real ID" card is issued for free, as I stated above. I've always argued that a national ID card is not as threatening as some assume.

But the Clinton-Boxer "Count Every Vote Act" should also be implemented.

[Honesty]

What can we do, starting now, to make sure the 2008 elections will be free, fair and clean?


In Detroit, at least, there aren't enough polling stations. I've waited *hours* to vote in 2004. Many people, including myself, ended up leaving the line because of work. I came back later that evening (and waited about an additional hour), but I imagine a lot of other people didn't.

- Honesty

[chowder]

Well you guys have to rise up and resist Mugabe's attempts to rig the election.

Oh, sorry. Yeah me to, I thought the vote had been given to boozers (the buildings) not the afficianodos of the falling down water :D

[BrainGlutton]

. . . not the afficianodos of the falling down water :D

:confused:

[chowder]

:confused:
Sorry, misspelt Afficionado which means ardent follower, falling down water is Britspeak for beer

[BrainGlutton]

Relevant editorial: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/28/AR2007032801969.html)

Before and after every close election, politicians and pundits proclaim: The dead are voting, foreigners are voting, people are voting twice. On closer examination, though, most such allegations don't pan out. Consider a list of supposedly dead voters in Upstate New York that was much touted last October. Where reporters looked into names on the list, it turned out that the voters were, to quote Monty Python, "not dead yet."

Or consider Washington state, where McKay closely watched the photo-finish gubernatorial election of 2004. A challenge to ostensibly noncitizen voters was lodged in April 2005 on the questionable basis of "foreign-sounding names." After an election there last year in which more than 2 million votes were cast, following much controversy, only one ballot ended up under suspicion for double-voting. That makes sense. A person casting two votes risks jail time and a fine for minimal gain. Proven voter fraud, statistically, happens about as often as death by lightning strike.

Yet the stories have taken on the character of urban myth. Alarmingly, the Supreme Court suggested in a ruling last year ( Purcell v. Gonzalez) that fear of fraud might in some circumstances justify laws that have the consequence of disenfranchising voters. But it's already happening -- those chasing imaginary fraud are actually taking preventive steps that would disenfranchise millions of real live Americans.