ACORN submits fraudulent voter registrations en masse

ACORN is a harmless, non-partisan organization that does good work for poor people. All this crap is just racist, right wing dog whistling. Some people hired by ACORN cheat the registrations. ACORN itself reports them when they see it. The organization itself does not engage in or encourage fraud.

These are an insignificant number of bad forms anyway, and they all get caught before anyone can vote. Bush sending in the feds to raid ACORN offices is all about trying to intimidate black voters, create an illusion that Obama’s landlside will be illegitimate and to slime Obama himself by association (and to blame the economic crisis on minorities).

Righties, having stolen the last two elections outright, are in no moral position to whine about this. It’s small potatoes compared to the MASSIVE amounts of tampering, disenfranchisement and intimidation by the right wing. You guys still have the Diebold machines, and your thugs are busily dumping voter rolls in rivers as we speak. Relax. There’s a better than even chance you’ll steal three in a row.

No, the government does that for you. I could walk to my polling place, and so could a lot of other people. Polling places are designed to be near peoples’ homes. Some people have to drive an hour to get to a BMV. How can you possibly argue that that’s equivalent.

OK, and black people have no standing to bring a suit, and Jim Crow is fine and dandy, and (to chose one near and dear to your particular heart) the rights to privacy and first trimester abortions are found in the Constitution. Right?

That is not the same thing, for reasons that have been well hashed out already. I want to see evidence of people printing up fake paycheck stubs, registering more than once, and voting more than once. Surely somebody has been caught doing this, since it is obviously so rampant.

Erm…it was suppression in Florida. Sure looks like they knew better to me and illegally did it anyway (bolding mine below).

In my opinion, this issue is not going to go away any time soon. And here’s my opinion as to why: On the one hand, we have many Democrats and several progressive organizations taking new voter registration drives really seriously for the first time in decades. On top of that, we also have a top-office candidate who is suddenly making voting look relevant to many people who were apathetic or negative about voting previously.

The combination of these factors will not only strain the ordinary workings of the electoral system somewhat, but will open up a lot of cracks for inevitable errors, negligence, and wrongdoing. There is no question that some registration organizers and some voters are going to commit some illegal acts when it comes to registering and voting, whether out of ignorance, carelessness, or deliberate malicious intent. I’ve seen no evidence so far that the total amount of such accidental and deliberate vote fraud will be significant in affecting the outcome of any electoral contest, but I am quite convinced that that amount will be nonzero.

On the other hand, we have many Republicans and conservatives absolutely shitting themselves over the prospect of seeing hundreds of thousands of new voters added to the electoral rolls. The Republican Party’s problem, at least as it’s presently constituted itself, is that it’s a minority party with respect to most of the actual views of most Americans eligible to vote. The Republican Party of today is the natural political choice only for economic elites, the religious right, and certain social conservatives.

And these groups (1) don’t add up to a majority of those eligible to vote; (2) are already highly mobilized, ever since the large grassroots organizing efforts that the conservative movement launched starting in the 1980’s; and (3) are not entirely comfortable with one another, so the GOP has to perform a rather tenuous balancing act to try to keep them all happy enough to keep turning out for GOP candidates. The Pubs don’t have new wells of potential voters to tap to the same extent that the Dems do. Their current policies simply aren’t in sync with the interests or preferences of most potential voters.

Simply put, this means that the more new voters turn out, on average, the worse the Republicans are going to lose, on the national level. The governing majorities that they’ve built in recent decades have depended (not entirely, but to a significant extent) on the fact that only about half of Americans eligible to vote actually turn out for national elections (as compared to three-quarters or more in most other industrialized countries). The average American is, on the whole, significantly more liberal on most issues than the current Republican Party position is, which means that if the average American actually gets around to voting, s/he is likely to vote Dem.

This puts Republicans in a bind. Most of them, being honorable people, are simply going to take the hit and work to rebuild themselves as a viable majority party. Some of them, however, are going to draw the conclusion that if more voters = fewer Republican victories, the best strategy is to keep from getting more voters.

So we’re going to see not only increasing Republican vigilance about the possibility of Dem and liberal vote fraud (which in itself, mind you, is a good thing—as I said in my first post to this thread, I think it’s most natural and most efficient when partisans of opposing stripes keep on vigilantly searching each other’s eyes for motes), but increasing shrillness and exaggeration about the extent to which vote fraud is a serious problem. We’re also, alas, likely to see increasing efforts by unscrupulous conservatives to simply game the system by squelching legitimate votes, in any way that they can. So the current rather ugly situation is about to get uglier. Well, that’s democracy.

Wow. Well, I sure look foolish now, having wholeheartedly endorsed the arguments made by Yousefzadeh, don’t I? Boy, is my face red.

Oh, wait. I didn’t. I said:

See, an “example” is an illustration of the point.

Now, my example would be an excellent one in Indiana, where they do require ID to vote, or in Virginia, where they do not permit felons to vote. But it would not be so hot in Ohio, as you point out.

But the point I was making required only an example – the definition of “suppression” is key to any citation offered in support of any argument one way or another. In this very thread, DCMS takes the position that Indiana’s voter ID laws are reprehensible; a fair-minded reader might conclude that DCMS would see those effects as voter suppression even though they are legal.

Get it now? My examples were offered to show that before a cite will have any value, the limits of “voter suppression” must be agreed upon.

How is the act of voting a burden to the poor? Are you suggesting that locations where voters could apply for ID would be as numerous and easily accessible as polling stations on election day?

ACORN is about as non-partisan as are the Master Debaters on the SDMB.

Why do you say that… because their charter says they are?

Sure, legally enforcing existing law about eligibility to vote is not “suppression”, any more than legally registering eligible new voters is “fraud”.

Likewise, advocating for more restrictive voter eligibility laws is not in itself “suppression”, any more than advocating for less restrictive ones is “fraud”.

Deliberate illegal disenfranchisement of eligible voters, along with intimidation tactics, negligence, and inefficiency that increase the likelihood of accidentally disenfranchising eligible voters, does count as vote suppression in my book, just as negligence, ignorance, and deliberate wrongdoing all count as forms of vote fraud.

As for attempting to increase the restrictions on voter eligibility by legal means, my feeling is that while it isn’t actually suppression, it’s undemocratic and elitist.

That’s right. They are non-partsan. The accusations that they are “left wing” are grounded in nothing but the fact that the people they help register tend to be poor minorities.

“People” “trying” to rig an election? As opposed to state government officials actually succeeding? The felons list in Florida in 2000 disenfranchised tens of thousands of mostly black eligible voters. That more than likely swung the whole election to Bush. That’s a vastly bigger deal than this.

That’s a really good question. I knew there were local organizers that pushed these kinds of loans but the only thing the news presented was how banks were discriminating against minorities and the poor. I had no clue that HUD was paying down payment/closing costs to help people get mortgages until I got on their website and started reading about it. It’s not just homebuyers. Section 8 housing funds will pay most of the rent for a house for up to 10 years, which in my area would amount to $84,000. That’s more than I paid for my house. There is something seriously wrong with this picture. Every time I hear about how long term welfare has ended I want to vomit. Between earned income credit “refunds”, foodstamps, medicaid, and HUD giveaways we have instituted a huge wealth redistribution program that is virtually invisible. We’ve just renamed welfare and added more agencies to distribute the money.

I brought this up in another thread but it’s worth repeating. While helping my brother in-law fix up his rental I was privy to the conversations of perspective Section 8 renters as they walked through. One person discussed where the big screen TV was going to go. WTH? What is HUD actually funding with my tax money? It certainly looks like lifestyle to me. Every person who looked at the house drove up in a better car than I had when I worked my way through school. I still don’t have a big screen TV (or cable for that matter). Why is my labor being taxed and not these people? Why do I have to be responsible while my money is getting squandered on the irresponsible?

Groups like ACORN have pushed for socially harmful programs that have long term consequences. In doing so they have made every attempt to bring the poor to the voting booth where they support candidates who further this process. This is nothing but a tax-payer funded breeding program for the terminally disaffected. Instead of paying for parks and roads we’re paying for free housing and bad loans.

ACORN struggles for justice. That is, almost by definition, “left wing”. I see no reason whatever to be ashamed of that.

Did I miss something, or has Bricker not addressed ACORN’s rebuttal of the allegations?

They might just be outright lying, I suppose, but since they allege various falsifiable facts, why should we believe that?

And maybe a better “example” would be to say, “You might think that keeping felons from voting in a state where they are not allowed to vote is illegal.” Clarity.

To steal from the late, lamented Molly Ivins, this probably sounds better in the original German.

Bricker, I ask this without snark, but simply because I want to get a sense of your priorities:

If a proposed voter ID law could be proven to prevent 50 acts of voter fraud, and it could also be proven to prevent 100 legal voters from voting because of the additional logistical barrier, would you support that law? Would you see it as serving the common good? What if it those numbers were 50 and 51, respectively? 50 and 50? 50 and 49? Any different?

Now, I’m extremely confident that the Indiana ID law is suppressing some non-zero number of votes. Imagine if there was only one BMV in the whole state, and the average voter had to drive 5 hours to reach it. Surely even you would concede that many voters would be disenfranchised by that. Now, what if that time were 4 hours? 3 hours? It’s all on a sliding scale – ANY impediment to voting will reduce the number of voters. So the question is, basically, what is the ratio of prevented-frauds to suppressed votes that makes an ID law desirable?

I actually work as a lawyer for HUD, though my work is almost exclusively in multi-family transactions and not the single family side. I think I know what program you’re talking about though (my co-worker administers it)-is it the first time home buyer stuff?

As to what else HUD is doing with your “extensive tax dollars”-the appropriations for the program I administer was $1 billion dollars nationally this year (a pittance when compared to say…the war).

I structure the grants that go to build housing for the disabled (physically handicapped and mentally retarded) and the impoverished elderly. The federal grants are absolutely laughable compared to the financing from state and local agencies. There is no way to build housing for these communities in states like California and New York without multiple levels of financing because the federal grants are so low. Fortunately, we’re now experimenting with a program that involves more private sector monies and the structured loans (more or less grants) programs are dying out.

Also, isn’t Sarah Palin all about rights for the mentally disabled? Exactly where do you propose these individuals live once their parents pass away?

Believe me, I find my agency frustrating and you’re right that it has historically been rife with corruption. But honestly, the dirty dealings have been with both parties.

If you truly feel any party receiving Section 8 funds is committing fraud, I urge you to report them to the Housing Authority and demand an investigation from the IG. Complaining about it on an internet message board is highly ineffective. Also note, HUD doesn’t administer or regulate the Section 8 tenants. They give the funds to the local Housing Authority.

I’m losing track of who is trying to make what point but I think it is worth pointing out once again that Florida suppression of felon voters was, in that instance, illegal and they knew it (they can prevent their own felons from voting but not felons from other states which is what they did). Chances are excellent, given the exceptionally narrow victory margin for Bush, that had they not done this Bush would have lost the election.

ACORN is as corrupt as they come. I’m still waiting for you to provide a factual response to the cite I gave. Here’s a clue: shrugging him off as a “right wing hack” is not a factual response. It’s just childish.

Even if that’s true (and it will come as no surprise that my opinion is at variance with yours on this issue), it makes no difference to the fact that ACORN has the right to encourage the so-called “terminally disaffected” to vote if they are eligible, and that the eligible voters among the so-called “terminally disaffected” are legally entitled to exercise their voting rights. You seem to be complaining not so much about actual vote fraud on the part of ACORN and/or new voters, as about the mere fact that large numbers of people who disagree with you are going to the polls.

Sorry, but this is a democracy. If what you consider to be the Good Society can’t exist unless large percentages of eligible voters refrain from voting (an appallingly undemocratic concept, btw), then voter registration drives leave you SOL.

If full citizen participation in the democratic process makes our society unlivable in your opinion, then it’s time either to figure out a way to persuade more voters to agree with your views, or else to find a different place where you’ll be happier living.