In case you're wondering how trivial of a matter it is to commit vote fraud, here are some simple instructions. Any dummy can do this, and you'd be a dummy yourself if you think that this doesn't already happen often. Often enough, anyway, to render the outcome of this close of an election to be impossible to ascertain. Clearly, I'm not presenting this information in order to encourage fraudulent voting, only to explain why it is foolish to believe that it doesn't already happen.
Instructions for any person, eligibile or not, to vote an unlimited number of times in person
1. Download a copy of the "Mail-In Vote Fraud Invitation Form" from Secretary of State Sam "What, Me Worry?" Reed's website. (Just kidding, it's actually called the Mail-In Voter Registration Form)
2. Check Yes in boxes (1) Are you a citizen of the United State of America? and (2) Will you be 18 years of age on or before election day?
[Don't worry about making up the answers to these and the other questions, the penalties for doing so might be severe, but the chances of getting caught are infinitesimal.]
Provide a fictitious name. Give a residence address that cannot be effectively verified, such as a private mailbox service, or a government building. Fabricate a birth date. Do not give an email address or telephone number. Leave the "WA Driver's License #" field blank. Choose 4 random digits and put these in the box marked "last 4 digits of your Social Security Number".
Sign and date the form.
3. Repeat step (2) several times, using different names, "Social Security Numbers" and different addresses in different precincts in different parts of the county. Mail in.
4. Vote early and often!
Instructions for a non-U.S. citizen to vote undetected from overseas
1. Follow instructions (1) and (2) above, except that you should also provide a valid mailing address where you can receive mail in your own country. Check YES under "ONGOING ABSENTEE REQUEST".
2. Repeat as often as desired, using different names, "Social Security Numbers" and addresses.
3. Vote!
--
I discussed these scenarios with a spokesperson from the Secretary of State's office. She essentially confirmed that there are no safeguards to prevent these sorts of abuses from occurring. The only improvement in the process will be effective January 2006, when federal law requires that names and Social Security Numbers have to be matched against the federal SS database. Such checking will commence sometime in 2005. In the meantime, and certainly prior to our tainted election, there was effectively NO credible verification of identity.
Even in the future when the registrars check the Social Security database, that does not validate someone's citizenship. The exact words the Sec. of State spokesperson used were that there is "NO WAY" to verify whether a registered voter is a United State citizen. Any foreign national who has ever worked legally in the United States can effectively register to vote. It would be nearly impossible to detect overseas foreigners who register and vote illegally.
--
While it is trivially easy for anybody to register and vote fraudulently, it is extremely difficult to cancel their registrations. The Sec. of State spokesperson explained that the elections officials do not investigate fraudulent registrations and voting, it's up to other voters to file challenges and the burden of investigation and proof is very high.
The Sec. of State spokesperson made a pointed comment to the effect that "right now we're hearing a lot of general allegations, but no specific details, and general allegations only undermine trust in the whole system. If there are specific allegations, then bring them forward". No doubt specific allegations will present themselves once we have an opportunity to actually see the list of people who are recorded as having voted. In the meantime, this Potemkin Village "voter registration" system that is about as useful as a padlock with a key attached deserves to have its trust undermined. And the sooner the better, so we can replace it with something that can do a better job of protecting our legal franchise.
In the meantime, what we have today is such an open invitation to abuse and fraud that it effectively disenfranchises every legitimate voter. Those who tell us otherwise, like Sam "What, Me Worry?" Reed and Christine Fraudoire are only insulting our intelligence and undermining our democracy.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at December 27, 2004 02:41 PM | Email This...Kiev County, anyone?
Posted by: bmvaughn on December 27, 2004 03:07 PMYou have to check whether the applicant is a United States citizen, and provide documentation of either citizenship or alien status. The SSA records this information in its database.
It is true than a permanent resident alien is issued the exact same type of social security card as a permanent resident alien -- without any restrictions whatsoever. However, the internal database makes the clear distinction between the two categories.
Aliens other than permanent residents are issued different types of social security cards. For example, a foreign worker here on temporary status (they have a lot of them at Microsoft) gets one that says something like "authorized to work only with supporting document". And if someone gets a card without any work authorization (issued only when an SSN is absolutely required), it says "not valid for employment".
We should see if we can get the Dept. of Homeland Security to run a special audit of Washington's voter registration database as a "special project". It would be important to know how the non-citizen vote is influencing federal elections.
However, there is absolutely nothing at the present time to prevent fraudulent voting. As for ID requirements, it would be very easy to have a fraudulent utility bill, since utility companies do not check identification and accept whatever name you give. If you live in India, and want to have fun, you can simply submit your India driver's license as proof of identity.
Posted by: Richard Pope on December 27, 2004 03:28 PMYou should have to produce a BIRTH CERTIFICATE to register, at the very least! Posted by: M on December 27, 2004 03:31 PM
Compare that to the mail-registration all-mail voting in Oregon where one doesn't even have to prove one's existence to vote!! Amazing things aren't even worse there!
Posted by: Howard Hirsch on December 27, 2004 03:33 PMOh, well, I guess anyone looking for consistency would on this site is engaging in a futile endeavor.
Posted by: John on December 27, 2004 04:41 PMIf this means ballots are thrown out because the voter didn't follow the very basic instructions, then they are either too dumb or too careless to have the right to have their vote counted. No canvassing board, even the most balanced and non-partisan, should *ever* be guessing as to what the voter intended. Either the ballot's filled out correctly or it isn't. End of story.
Posted by: Bryan Lovely on December 27, 2004 05:09 PMI don't think you were on Dino Rossi's campaign team and therefore I don't think you know what you are talking about. What, are you all of a sudden a WA GOP insider?
Were you at the facility in Tukwila when Diane Tibelius was saying to GOP observers "I know they're going to try to steal this!"
The GOP knew what was going to happen, they prepared for it, and now we're going to see how well they documented everything.
Your blanket assertion that they weren't concerned is patently FALSE. If and when Rossi gets into the Governor's mansion, you don't think he and Rob McKenna would try to clean this stuff up, regardless of the number of recounts and lawsuits?
Loser.
Posted by: Larry on December 27, 2004 05:11 PMI'm basing my comments on the PUBLIC comments of Rossi and the GOP. No inside info from the Rossi campaign needed for that.
The fact is, if these alleged irregularities make the outcome of an election this close impossible to call, they did so when Rossi was ahead as well. Why then was Rossi and the GOP claiming an iron-clad victory at the time?
As for your alleged statement from the Tukwila faciltiy, got a source for that?
If the Rossi campaign was concerned they certainly didn't show it. By concerned I mean being concerned about the results of this election being too close to call as Stefan says rendered "the outcome of this close of an election to be impossible to ascertain". If they were concerned about this, they wouldn't have been declaring victory & declaring the election over.
Or in the knee-jerk, right-wing world you live in does fraud which occurs "Often enough, anyway, to render the outcome of this close of an election to be impossible to ascertain" only important when the outcome has a Dem beeting a GOPer? Like I said looking for consistency amoung the kool-aid drinkers found here is a futile exercise.
As if consistance regarding concern for voters was shown by Dems and Gregoire. How about any concern with military mailed in votes? I have detected no concern with that issue from Dems, KC or Gregoire. Posted by: Bruce H on December 27, 2004 05:40 PM
So what you are asserting is that Dino Rossi did not SAY IN PUBLIC that he was concerned. Does that mean he was not concerned? Absolutely not. Ergo, you are wrong. I know, you must hate logic by now - always getting in the way of your best arguments.
As for your consistency, how's this: If & when Rossi gets into the Governor's mansion, EVERYBODY on this website who has been complaining about irregularities will STILL DEMAND CHANGE. I guarantee it.
My source for the quote? Why would I tell you? You don't even leave a valid email address, you Troll.
Why is it that military voters are the voter's, whose potential disenfranchisement concerns republicans? Last I checked members of the military weren't more equal than other citizens. Why should thier ballots being counted be of special concern? They have no more, and no less right to vote and have their vote counted than the homeless.
Posted by: John on December 27, 2004 05:47 PMRossi's margin (including today's official Whitman reports and last night's unofficial Kitsap) is now +42.
A narrow margin, but he's still the winner.
Stefan today:
In case you're wondering how trivial of a matter it is to commit vote fraud, here are some simple instructions. Any dummy can do this, and you'd be a dummy yourself if you think that this doesn't already happen often. Often enough, anyway, to render the outcome of this close of an election to be impossible to ascertain.
Funny how the ability to determine the winner of the close election changes depending upon who is winng.
Posted by: John on December 27, 2004 06:03 PMThe disenfranchisement of the military so often concerns the Republicans because the Democrats so often try to disenfranchise the military.
Sheesh. Couldn't see that one coming down Broadway at ya?
Posted by: Larry on December 27, 2004 06:03 PMNo, what I am saying is Rossi and the GOP said the slim margin was definative when they were ahead. Now that they are behind they say it isn't. You can play all the word games you wish, but those are the facts.
As for consitency, some of us have called for a re-vote all along precisely BECAUSE the margin of victory is within the margin of error with any counting method. Will you not be calling for reform if and when Gergoire is in the governor's mansion?
As to your source, so you are as good as admitting you made it up. I bet it really frustrates you wing-nuts that I don't give you my real e-mail address, it must be hard to have to debate ideas withsomeone you can't try to intimidate with hate mail.
Posted by: John on December 27, 2004 06:07 PMYou are the one who should feel shame, shame for not believing in equality. Members of the military are NOT more equal then everyone else.
Posted by: John on December 27, 2004 06:09 PMWell, with the successful conclusion of the Governers race in Washington resulting in a Democrat becoming your governor... I can now safely tell you all....
GET OVER IT.... MOVE ON....
No, it is hard to debate ideas with someone who has no grasp of logic, who cannot spell nor form proper sentences, and who is paranoid and deluded into thinking that he or she will receive hate mail from a blog.
Have a nice day, Troll Boy.
Posted by: Larry on December 27, 2004 06:11 PMNow the real reason Republican's are so concerned about the disenfranchisement of the military is that the military tends to vote republican. Just as they are freaked by the counting of all legal ballots in King county becuase KC votes dem. Situational ethics at their finest.
Oh, and I don't live anywhere near Broadway, but don't let that stop you from your scheduled knee-jerk.
Posted by: John on December 27, 2004 06:12 PMWell, can you find the grammer and punctuation errors that needed correcting above?
Also, to anyone, who has a rudimentary grasp of logic, it would be clear that it is not hate mail from a blog I expect I would recieve, but hate mail from wing-nuts like yourself, who read the blog.
Posted by: John on December 27, 2004 06:17 PMMilitary voters, on the other hand, often are disenfranchised. If they are far away, and their registration form is misplaced or misprocessed, they won't know about it until it is likely too late to register. They will have to vote by absentee ballot, which the county might send out late or not at all. If they get their absentee ballot, it might be received by them after election day. And if they mail it back, it might not arrive until after the deadline imposed for the county to receive completed absentee ballots.
These problems are magnified in Democrat-controlled counties, such as King County, that are inherently mismanaged from top to bottom, especially in the county elections office.
Posted by: Richard Pope on December 27, 2004 06:35 PMTry reading the posts before you respond. I never said homeless were being disenfranchised, so how could I possibly be "making shit up" about it? Must be that wing-nut 'logic' larry keeps attempting. I cited the homeless becuase of Stefan's rant about precint 1823 where Seattle's homeless are registered, using the nearest government building, which is, as you pointed out, according to state law.
Yes, OVERSEAS military face the very same hurdles to voting that ANY citizen living and working abroad does. Again, military voters have the EXACT same right to have thier votes counted as any other citizen. No more, no less.
Ah yes, the wing-nut focus on Democratic 'controlled' counties, all the while ignoring even larger discrepencies in republican 'controlled' counties.
Posted by: john on December 27, 2004 07:12 PMSeriously, John, you must be stupid as shit. You've stuck around on this blog long enough to become a parody of yourself - nobody takes you seriously because we've read your garbage.
You can challenge my logic all you want, but I am Jedi and you are Jabba. You've managed to use a spell check to correct my writing yet you still use a possessive when you should be using a plural (hint: It's Republicans, not Republican's.)
I never thought that you lived on Broadway - it's an expression. I've lived in Chicago and Denver - both have Broadway Avenues. I guess that's why it's a common expression. Get out much?
I can't imagine being so angry that I would troll blogs of people that I disagree with just to call people names.
And remember John: We're winning. Every day, day after day, inexorably, you and your Democrat buddies are doing the dinosaur walk of death. More people voted for Bush than any nominee in the history of the world - more than live in France, of all places. We increased House and Senate seats. We hold the majority of Governor's seats in the US. We even got a Republican Attorney General elected in this state. Whether this Gubernatorial election is another victory or a mere speedbump on the road to dominance and the extinction of the Democratic Party remains to be seen.
The country gets redder all the time. Gallup recently published that more people identify themselves as Rs than Ds for the first time in how long? Decades? Half a century? In my lifetime we've won 8 of 11 Presindential elections, and we'll win the next one too. Hispanics and minorities and women are all moving to the Red Side of the Force.
Seattle is the last little outpost of bronze-age civilization in a country that is moving into the 21st century. Enjoy your little slice of Heaven while it lasts.
Like I said before, have a nice day (and life) Troll Boy.
Posted by: Larry on December 27, 2004 07:28 PMJohn's problem is that he's assuming the fraud is equally spread among Republicans and Democrats, so that a 130-vote win by Rossi would be just as uncertain as one by Gregoire. The problem with that assumption, of course, is that it's nuts. Nobody, including John, actually believes it. The overwhelming majority of election fraud is committed by and for Democrats, which is why Republicans are constantly trying to make it harder, and Democrats are constantly fighting to make it easier. If the facts were reversed, if most fraud benefited the Rs, you can bet that they would immediately switch positions, and Ds would be trying to tighten the procedures, while Rs would be trying to loosen them.
Posted by: Zev Sero on December 27, 2004 07:37 PMWhat you can't stand is backing the wrong candidate. Your clap-trap might fly in Pravda, er, the P.I., but not 'round here.
Now go listen to Air America and watch F911 for the 50th time.
Posted by: Shaun on December 27, 2004 09:15 PMPosted by: John on December 27, 2004 10:21 PM
Better run now, you're mommy's calling, your binky is fresh and hot out of the dryer just how you like it.
Posted by: Larry on December 27, 2004 10:31 PMBinkys come out of the dishwasher, blankies come out of the dryer.
You're such an idiot.
Posted by: John on December 27, 2004 10:35 PMNow take a look at how voter fraud really works in the 21st century: http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001024.htm
Posted by: Bushwhacked on December 28, 2004 01:51 AMPosted by John at December 27, 2004 04:41 PM
Wow...full service trolls. He's come to correct both our thinking and our grammar.
You obviously shouldn't be wasting your time here.
Given the current controversy over the Washington Gubernatorial race, and the laundry list of problems with the state election code, most readers would assume that the passage quoted above could be attributed to State Republican Chair Chris Vance, or maybe Sound Politics' Stefan Sharkansky, whose detailed analysis and frequent updates during this debacle have distinguished him among burgeoning Northwest Conservative bloggers.
But in fact, those sage and prescient words came from none other than the Great Communicator himself, Ronald Reagan, uttered in 1975 during one of more than 1,000 radio broadcasts he did up until 1979. I happened to receive a sampling of these little gems in a 5-CD set for Christmas, titled Reagan In His Own Voice, and should not have been surprised when I popped in the first disc, and almost immediately heard my favorite President riffing on voter registration issues in California, nearly 30 years prior to the mess in here in Washington. Much of the piece was devoted to criticizing what Reagan called, “transient voting,” where a voter merely had to express their “intent” to reside in a particular county, in order to be registered to vote there.
Is anyone shocked to learn that the California city Reagan was referring to in the excerpt above was Berkeley? Fast forward three decades, and he could just as easily been referring to Seattle, or what Scott Cummins refers to as “Berkeley-On-The Sound.”
“This is Ronald Reagan, thanks for listening.”