December 27, 2004
Vote Fraud for Dummies
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.
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
uh oh... thanks to SP, now there will be 30% more voting in KC next election...
...Kiev County, anyone?
Stefan, you underestimate the capabilities of the Social Security database. Take a look at an application for Social Security card: http://www.ssa.gov/online/ss-5.pdf
You 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.
3. OK, I'm sick to my stomach now :(
4. Arrrgh! Why is it so much harder to crash the suites at Safeco Field (like almost impossible!) than it is to vote fraudulently and vote several times, at that?
You should have to produce a BIRTH CERTIFICATE to register, at the very least!
At least in Washington if one does not make the effort to complete an absentee ballot application one must show up at a polling place to vote.
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!
6. I had a close friend who lost her son in a car wreck a week before he turned 18. The Driver's Licensing people had registered him to vote when he renewed his license a couple of weeks earlier. She received a voter registration card for him, then later in the summer an absentee ballot. When she called the Skagit County voter's registration office to notify them that he had passed away she received a very interesting comment. She was told that the only way their office knew that someone had died was by following the local paper's obituaries. I have another friend who did not put her dad's death notice in the paper because of the cost of it. How difficult for someone in King (opps Fraud) County to forge the signature? It happened in Chicago, we are exempt.
7. Peggy, I am very sorry to hear of the unfortunate passing of your friend's son. However, his name should have been removed. RCW 29A.08.510 covers the removal of dead voters. It is true that the county auditor can rely on the obituaries. Of course, not everyone chooses to publish one. But state law also requires the Registrar of Vital Statistics in Olympia to furnish a list of each month's deaths, so that county auditors can remove dead people from the rolls. Somebody just isn't doing their job. Since the state registrar is a Democratic appointee, and since Skagit County is not the only county failing to notice dead voters, I can imagine that the problem lies in Olympia.
8. Or somebody was not allowed to do their job or only did their job for Republicans!
Gee, wouldn't that list of folks telling us otherwise and "insulting our intelligence and undermining our democracy" include Dino Rossi, up until the point at which the results of said system ceased to show him as the winner?
Oh, well, I guess anyone looking for consistency would on this site is engaging in a futile endeavor.
10. Uh John - There can be no lawsuit unless the Plaintiff can prove that he/she is harmed. Up until this last recount, Rossi was not "harmed". HE IS NOW!
11. Uh, CP, Rossi(and the GOP) wasn't the least bit concerned about all the alleged voting irregularities they are now screeching about, until he was losing. In other words, he didn't give a shit about election fraud which according to Stefan serves to "render the outcome of this close of an election to be impossible to ascertain" until he wasn't winning. In fact, it was only after Rossi was losing that the GOP realized that the outcome of an election this close was impossible to ascertain, up until that point 50% + 1 consituted a clear victory.
12. Voter fraud isn't exclusively found in Washington state, Minnesota Republicans alerted state election officials of an email intercepted just a couple days before the Tuesday election from MoveOn.org to out-of-state 'voters' on how to connect with Minnesota residents who would then 'vouch for' the illegal voters.In Minnesota, a person with a valid ID can vouch for someone who can't provide proof of residency, either via a drivers' license or even a utility bill. The good news part of Minnesota's law says that anyone can challenge someone vouching for the illegal voter. Either state's procedures are a mess, though.
I've been saying ever since Nov. 2 (and really since Florida '00), that what we need is ironclad statutory criteria for ballots that eliminate *any* subjectivity as much as humanly possible.
If 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.
I 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?
I'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.
16. I asked this on an earlier post. Does not checking the Male/Female blocks prevent you from registering? Simple question. I mean if I refuse to put my last name down I could not register. Right? Apparently Male/Female may not be a fatal error as 2600 or so folks have not listed Male/Female.
17. Well John,
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.
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.
20. John: The military is the reason we are able to vote at all. They fight and die to keep this country free. Shame on you.
Rossi'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.
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.
The 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?
No, 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.
You are the one who should feel shame, shame for not believing in equality. Members of the military are NOT more equal then everyone else.
When the Democratic Party complained that voter fraud was committed in Florida, you republicans screamed get over it.
Well, 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.
Got any evidence for that? Certainly not holding my breath since you have as good as admitted you're just making shit up.
Now 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.
No, it is hard to debate ideas with someone, who has no grasp of logic; who cannot spell or form proper sentences; and who is paranoid and deluded into thinking that he or she will receive hate mail from a blog.
Well, 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.
Now we have John making up stuff about homeless people being disenfranchised. All they have to do is fill out a registration form, and they are registered. If they don't have a regular address, the law provides for the nearest government building to be their address for voting purposes. If they show up at *any* polling place in the state on election day, they can vote (between 7 am and 8 pm) and have their ballot counted in the precinct they are actually registered in. Or they can go to the county elections office anytime before election day, and get an absentee ballot right then and there, and fill it out and hand it in. Homeless people are most definitely not disenfranchised.
Military 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.
Try 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.
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it....was John hugging it?
Seriously, 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.
Yes, earlier Rossi expressed confidence that the system would work, because despite all the fraud he was still ahead. If Rossi ended up one vote ahead of Gregoire, that would mean that all the fraudulent votes were not enough to swing the result. A victory for democracy. Of course, he was privately concerned, but it's not appropriate for a winner to appear worried in public, and to nitpick a fake vote here or there, when didn't end up doing any harm. Now that more fraud was committed, and the Democrats managed to manufacture enough votes to swing the result, it is time to protest.
John'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.
What 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.
34. Careful guys, don't want to scrape those knuckles up on the pavement.
Oh, John, you're so witty!
Better run now, you're mommy's calling, your binky is fresh and hot out of the dryer just how you like it.
Oh Larry, you poor fool.
Binkys come out of the dishwasher, blankies come out of the dryer.
You're such an idiot.
Thanks for the hilarious take on what happened in Washington and for your theory of how a vast nameless conspiracy of Democrats, in your view, rigged the vote in Washington.
Now take a look at how voter fraud really works in the 21st century: http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001024.htm
38. Oh, well, I guess anyone looking for consistency would on this site is engaging in a futile endeavor.
Posted 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.
39. Bushwacked - This site has been pretty consistent in the message that fraud was possible but that King County elections incompetence is more likely the problem. Take your pick, it is either fraud or incompetence, there is no other answer to the King County election tally fiasco. By your message above, I assume you think the Democrats running King County are completely and utterly incompetent (since you discount the fraud angle). I am glad you concur that the Democrats are incompentent government officials.
40. Its not just King Co. Back in September 1996, a citizens group called CLEAN secured a TRO from then-Supreme Court Justice Charles Smith based on declarations from election observers that the then- Auditor for Pierce Co. was counting absentee ballots before primary election day. In response, then Sec. of State Munro adopted "emergency" rules, defining when ballots could be prepared for processing (10 days before election day), tabulated (day of) and counted (after polls closed). Added to the final draft was language continuing to authorize remarking and remaking of ballots. The Pierce Co. auditor claimed he lacked the authority to adopt such regulations, that only the legislature could change the rules. One month later, Oct. 1996, two citizens learned that the same Pierce Co. Auditor was running "ballot processing" (which includes remaking, remarking and other "enhancement") at an undisclosed, unpublished, locked and guarded location contrary to then existing state law which called for ballot processing to be advertized as an open public meeting. The "secret" location was a warehouse owned by an Electrical Union. The citizens went to the warehouse, claimed the process should be public, and were ejected. During the ensuing lawsuits, the auditor admitted that her workers had remarked over 28,000 ballots (nearly 19% of the vote in Pierce Co.). The trial judge found election law violations and awarded CLEAN $50K. That was reversed on appeal in March 2004 (yes, 8 years later). CLEAN petitioned the state supreme court which announced it wouldn't make a decision on whether or not to take the case until Nov. 3, 2004, one day after the election. Pierce Co. filed no opposition and the Supremes denied the petition. Note, effective July 2004 our state's election laws were reorganized to parallel the emergency rules adopted by Munro back in 1996. State law (RCWs) establishing three distinct phases: canvassing (which includes ballot processing); recount and contesting. [See RCW Chapters 29.60;64 & 68.] Consequently, to authorize canvassing during a recount would be inconsistent with the statutory scheme. Note, the Pierce County Auditor's spouse was a former Teamsters Union managing agent and her ballot "trouble-shooter" during the election. That same auditor lied under oath about her educational creditials (claiming 2 degrees from UW when she had none) and the State Supreme Court authorized her recall (which didn't proceed). Finally, that auditor was president of the national association of county and election officials where she advocated for absentee balloting.
“How easy should it be to become a registered voter? In recent years, and without our paying much attention it’s become easier and easier to become a registered voter. The proponents of easier registration would have us believe that non-voters are panting to vote, but they find registering to do so impossibly complex and difficult. Let me give you an idea of what happens when you make it too easy. In one election two thousand more votes were cast . . . than the total number of adult citizens living in the city. Thirty people voted from one address, a single family dwelling, and fifty-nine were registered to do so . . .” In another election, “six people voted from that address even though the house had burned down four months before the election. Look at the potential for cheating. A John Doe can be registered in three or more counties (and) there is no cross-checking . . .”
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.”