The plot thickens:

A G.O.P. Operative Long Trailed by Voter Fraud Claims

Take care,

Derek

Total Heartache:  Early absentee voting targets poor and minorities for disenfranchisement

“Yet votes cast by mail are less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised and more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth, statistics show. Election officials reject almost 2 percent of ballots cast by mail, double the rate for in-person voting.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-by-mail-faulty-ballots-could-impact-elections.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1349618572-fvdFBlBDgo0Cr5PsKRu4lg&pagewanted=all&_r=0

Doubtless yet another plot by the Republicans to steal elections.

Jeciron - 04 October 2012 04:52 AM

I find it interesting that the party that touts itself as the “party for smaller government”, so desperately wants to institute an expensive, intrusive law in order to solve what is demonstrably a non existent problem.

That’s awesome!

So how do you demonstrate it?

Perhaps by comparing actual voter fraud with the new voter registration fraud.  The last I heard was about 13 cases of actual voter fraud in the last 10 years vs the thousands of voter registration fraud cases in the past month.

Thus the actual results of this situation is the disenfranchisement of thousands of existing qualified voters and replacing it with the enfranchisement of thousands of non existent or non qualified voters.  Does this not raise a red flag about “intent”?

If a cure is worse than the illness, should the doctor proceed anyway? The courts seem to think that what is happening now is not a cure at all and one by one these new laws have been set aside at least for this election.

Voter ID, yes. But in view of the sheer number of people involved and the graft of political interests, a solution should be carefully planned, regulated, and gradually implemented, perhaps at birth, when applying for diver’s license, opening a bank account, or any activity which requires the presentation of legal status documentation. These requirements were installed at the onset and people know what to expect when you apply for a driver’s license. Every one knows these rules and if they do not, they are given as much time as they need to complete the required forms. Unfortunately, this has never been the case for voting as the requirements have varied drastically from state to state. IMO, the grandfather clause should apply for those who are unable to comply with these new stringent requirements.

I found an actual case of voter fraud.  By a Republican precinct chairman from Texas.

Irony, thou art my greatest love.

Jeciron - 04 October 2012 04:52 AM

I find it interesting that the party that touts itself as the “party for smaller government”, so desperately wants to institute an expensive, intrusive law in order to solve what is demonstrably a non existent problem.

It appears from Erie County NYS that the Reps. are only interested in being the “party for maller Government”

It appears from Erie County NYS that the Reps. are only interested in being the “party for smaller government” on the federal level.  On the local level they don’t want to merge school districts, villages and towns, highway and police depts. etc.  They would lose too many local empires.  The Dems. are as equally as guilty of this.

Also I note the Reps. generally are not calling for a reduction in the prison industry, even though we have twice the number per 100,000 people in our jails than China the next highest.  Also they are all against cutting the Defense budget, even though we spend as much as the next ten military powers combined.

Write4U - 07 October 2012 11:13 PM

Perhaps by comparing actual voter fraud with the new voter registration fraud.

Hmmm.  Please correct me if I’m wrong, but those two things only prove that voter fraud doesn’t exist if there’s nothing in either category for comparison.

Dead Monky - 11 October 2012 09:12 AM

I found an actual case of voter fraud.  By a Republican precinct chairman from Texas.

“After the Fort Bend Star received a tip about the Republican candidate for Fort Bend County Precinct 1 Commissioner, the Star conducted an in-depth review of Bruce Fleming and his wife, Nancy Fleming’s voting record. Our research found that for several years Fleming voted both in Bucks County, Pa. and in Fort Bend County.”
http://www.fortbendstar.com/2012/10/10/commissioner-candidate-bruce-fleming-accused-of-voter-fraud/

He did it for years and wasn’t discovered until a tipster raised suspicion.  But don’t worry.  It’s a demonstrably non-existent problem. 

Seriously, this helps make my repeated point that our system makes it hard to detect cases like this one.  It’s disingenuous to opine that only one party’s doing it.  I’ve already provided an example of a Democrat caught doing the same thing.  What’s the solution, other than pretending there’s no problem?

Bryan - 12 October 2012 01:54 AM

Write4U - 07 October 2012 11:13 PM

Perhaps by comparing actual voter fraud with the new voter registration fraud.

Hmmm.  Please correct me if I’m wrong, but those two things only prove that voter fraud doesn’t exist if there’s nothing in either category for comparison.

I am not sure what you mean by that. You speak of a case here and a case there from both parties. By the law of averages these abberrations would tend to cancel out.  But I know of a recent massive voter registration case involving hundreds of non existent voters in a single location, which has been widely reported.

I understand the point you made earlier that claims of low voting fraud in the past are suspect because there has been minimal control and verification. I can accept that as a valid argument. But given the time spans involved, it is unlikely that massive voter fraud over the decades would not have shown up statistically.
Consider this, voting has gone down over decades and it is unlikely that regular voters would have stopped voting in such great numbers that even a massive fraud would not make an impact on the votes cast.
OTOH, within three months of the new voter registration laws we find an effort to commit fraud by the very people who are making these changes.
Gerrymandering in any form, IMO is a blatant insult to the notion of unbiased representative elections.

These trends tend to make me question the motives of any party which rams through radical departures from previous, relatively trouble free voting at all levels from the smallest villages/cities to county, to state, and to federal elections.

I agree, we do need traceable identification and the best form would be a picture ID, but you cannot take away the right to vote when a person is on record has having voted numerous times, but is now denied this right, because she doesnt have a valid drivers license.
A person is eighty and has voted for decades in the same precinct and no longer drives but has her old expired drivers license (with or without picture) and her SS number and a recent utility bill or even a letter verifying her address, why would that person now be ineligible to vote? She is already in the system! You cannot make that citizen disappear on an administrative technicality! She is in the Census as a citizen and therefore enjoys the rights of all citizens.
Can anyone tell a person that what was good enough in the past 30 years is no longer good enough to declare yourself a citizen with the Right to vote? This is not some private country club which can deny membership or exclude certain existing members from certain functions or privileges.

In order to deny a Right, the claimant must present a constitunional legal argument why this Right should be taken away from a citizen who can prove that he/she is a citizen through other means. Give her a valid (temporary) ID at the booth and let her vote! Later she can walk into the local motorvehicle department and exchange her temporary ID into a permanent ID.

IMO, full implementation of a universally accepted ID card will take decades if not an entire generation. Any deviation from state to state places an undue burden on a US citizen in federal affairs.

Nah, the best form of identification would be a chip implanted in each person’s chest at birth, or as soon as possible for the rest of us.  That way, when we vote they just scan us and feed the information into a central computer.  That way, everyone elegible would get to vote, and no one could vote twice or for another person.  For anyone who couldn’t or wouldn’t go to the polls, they could just call and have someone come out with a portable scanner.  Note that this wouldn’t cost anything because each party would be quick to send volunteers out to voters registered in their party.

In addition, the government wouldn’t have to worry about where each of its citizens were at any moment. 

Occam

Bryan - 12 October 2012 02:11 AM

Seriously, this helps make my repeated point that our system makes it hard to detect cases like this one.  It’s disingenuous to opine that only one party’s doing it.  I’ve already provided an example of a Democrat caught doing the same thing.  What’s the solution, other than pretending there’s no problem?

The only reason I cared that it was a Republican is because the GOP is the party that most prattles on about this and I found the irony amusing.  Democrats doing it?  Not surprising, still amusing, but not as ironic so not quite as amusing.

Occam. - 12 October 2012 01:28 PM

Nah, the best form of identification would be a chip implanted in each person’s chest at birth, or as soon as possible for the rest of us.  That way, when we vote they just scan us and feed the information into a central computer.  That way, everyone elegible would get to vote, and no one could vote twice or for another person.  For anyone who couldn’t or wouldn’t go to the polls, they could just call and have someone come out with a portable scanner.  Note that this wouldn’t cost anything because each party would be quick to send volunteers out to voters registered in their party.

In addition, the government wouldn’t have to worry about where each of its citizens were at any moment. 

Occam

And then hackers supporting each party would change the data…

Take care,

Derek

I figured, rather than burying them, they’d keep the dead bodies on ice and just get them out each election.

Occam

I wouldn’t think you’d need the whole body.  Perhaps someone could perpetrate fraud with a purse full of old ears, or what ever body part contained the chip.

Write4U - 12 October 2012 02:55 AM

Bryan - 12 October 2012 01:54 AM

Write4U - 07 October 2012 11:13 PM

Perhaps by comparing actual voter fraud with the new voter registration fraud.

Hmmm.  Please correct me if I’m wrong, but those two things only prove that voter fraud doesn’t exist if there’s nothing in either category for comparison.

I am not sure what you mean by that. You speak of a case here and a case there from both parties.

I don’t speak of “a case here and a case there.”  I speak of a widespread systemic vulnerability where the system makes it difficult to figure out how many cases of voter fraud take place in reality.

By the law of averages these abberrations would tend to cancel out.

Really.  Is that the same law of averages that helps ensure that machine voting errors affect voters from both parties equally?

I don’t buy the law of averages argument without some real data to back it up.

But I know of a recent massive voter registration case involving hundreds of non existent voters in a single location, which has been widely reported.

It always helps if you provide URLs to help make clear what you’re talking about.  Is it a case of improper registration?  Or something else?

I understand the point you made earlier that claims of low voting fraud in the past are suspect because there has been minimal control and verification. I can accept that as a valid argument. But given the time spans involved, it is unlikely that massive voter fraud over the decades would not have shown up statistically.

You’re contradicting yourself.  Doesn’t the “law of averages” equal things out?  So that it won’t show up statistically?

But let’s suppose it doesn’t equal out after all.  Where do you read the discrepancy in the numbers to detect where the law of averages doesn’t equal things out?

Consider this, voting has gone down over decades and it is unlikely that regular voters would have stopped voting in such great numbers that even a massive fraud would not make an impact on the votes cast.

I’m trying to consider it, but your sentence rivals one of mine for convolution.  Can I get a simplified version?

OTOH, within three months of the new voter registration laws we find an effort to commit fraud by the very people who are making these changes.

So you’ve found the guilty party, then?  URL?  Or at least just a name?

Gerrymandering in any form, IMO is a blatant insult to the notion of unbiased representative elections.

Huh.  What about the law of averages? 

I don’t think there’s any entirely neutral way to draw district lines, myself.  And if you knew that minority representation in Congress often depends on racially gerrymandered districts then I don’t think you’d decry the practice so readily.  Since both sides do it, I think it’s sufficient to simply enforce the same rules on it for both sides.  Party in control draws the lines.  The lines should avoid creating oddly-shaped districts with no discernible resemblance to natural boundaries or to shared constituent interests (the latter is typically the justification for the racial gerrymandering we’ve got).  “Neutral” line drawing has an odd tendency to result in districts that favor Democrats more than state demographics seem to suggest they should.

These trends tend to make me question the motives of any party which rams through radical departures from previous, relatively trouble free voting at all levels from the smallest villages/cities to county, to state, and to federal elections.

A person is eighty and has voted for decades in the same precinct and no longer drives but has her old expired drivers license (with or without picture) and her SS number and a recent utility bill or even a letter verifying her address, why would that person now be ineligible to vote?

Depends on the individual case, I would say.  If the person is not a legal citizen then that would be the reason.  Or the state could pass a ill-crafted law that makes it too difficult for that person to exercise their legitimate voting privilege.  I don’t suggest that every voter ID law is well crafted.  The Georgia law seems like a pretty good model, from what I can tell.

She is already in the system! You cannot make that citizen disappear on an administrative technicality! She is in the Census as a citizen and therefore enjoys the rights of all citizens.

As a legal argument that’s fairly weak.  But I agree with the sentiment that a legitimate citizen should have a reasonable avenue to pursue their right to exercise the franchise.  Sometimes the hurdles are set too high.