While doing the previous post, I ran across this very clear example of what I have begun to call distributed vote fraud. The New York Daily News found last August that 46,000 people were registered to vote in both Florida and New York. Of those 46,000, 68 percent were Democrats, 12 percent were Republicans, and 16 percent were neither. (And no, the newspaper does not explain why the numbers don't add up to 100 percent.)
No Democratic party leader organized these voters — at least as far as I know. Instead, they decided, by themselves, perhaps after talking with friends, to vote twice. And, just as I argued below, far more Democrats than Republicans decided, on their own, to commit vote fraud.
Anyone want to guess how many fraudulent votes Al Gore received in the 2000 election from this group?
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
Posted by Jim Miller at January 12, 2005 02:56 PM | Email ThisI just hope that there are law enforcement officers that are working to prosecute such offenders.
Posted by: Koe on January 12, 2005 03:02 PMFinally, that 68% of New Yorkers with double registrations were Democrats doesn't really say anything about the distribution of fraud, unless we know
1) the geographic dispersal of those people. If they were all from NYC, for instance, Republicans might just be OVER-represented. On the other hand, perhaps some are reverse snowbirds, or are such longtime Democratic registrants that the term has become meaningless. Note that the accusations of fraud in Florida this year took a hit because "Democratic counties" were actually Dixiecratic--and thus may form a profile much closer to current Republicans.
Posted by: torridjoe on January 12, 2005 03:05 PMcontinuing:
2) that these people actually voted
3) how they voted
4) that they were intentionally dual-registered
5) that they cast two ballots
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/10/299873.shtml
Posted by: A Corrector on January 12, 2005 03:19 PM"It is important to note that once an individual completes the registration process in the state of Florida, they will no longer be legally allowed to vote in New York, although they certainly will retain the legal right to switch their voter registration back to New York at some point in the future. Please note that any attempt to vote in more than one state in the same election constitutes fraud and may involve civil and criminal penalties. "
Posted by: torridjoe on January 12, 2005 03:22 PM100,000 upstate New Yorkers move to Florida;
60,000 are Republicans, while 40,000 are Democrats.
100,000 New York City residents move to Florida;
90,000 are Democrats, while 10,000 are Republicans.
34,000 Democrats double register, while only 6,000
Republicans double register.
Conclusion: Republicans disproportionately
cheat!
Look, if Democrats cheat disproportionately,
and Democrats live disproportionately in NYC,
then, of course, you should expect the cheaters
to disproportionately live in NYC!
I have read lamer defenses of the indefensible,
but not many!
But some of them did -- which is all that I claimed.
Posted by: Jim Miller on January 12, 2005 03:32 PMIt is certainly good to do the research before the election and publicize it. This can result in voter registration rolls being corrected and reduce the number of people that might dare to vote twice. But we can't call it fraud unless either (a) a person registers in one state, when they actually live in the other state (as opposed to movers who don't get cancelled) or (b) someone votes in more than one state in the same election.
Posted by: Richard Pope on January 12, 2005 03:37 PMWhile the "Dixiecratic nature" of certain
Northern Florida counties did cause, "certain
accusations of fraud to take a hit," you
failed to mention that the accusations of fraud
that "took a hit" were Democratic accusations
of Republican-favoring fraudulent miscounting
of the ballots in Northern Florida. That
accusation was based on the apperent disconnect
between the registration percentages and the
actual vote. A careful review and recount
determined that the Republicans didn't cheat.
Bush honestly won seventy-something percent
of the vote in many Northern Florida counties.
But, stories of Republican "fraud" in Florida
and Ohio have become the new urban legends of
2004 election.
This is apples and oranges. Voting once in New
York and once in Florida is fraud. This
accusation of "fraud" was buttressed by the
indentification of 400 to 1,000 individual
acts of voter fraud among the known pool of
double registrants. Since the scandal emerged
before the election, it was not known how
many did in fact double-vote on Nov 2. Nor
will it ever been known how many acts of
fraud were averted by the publicity generated.
One difficulty lies with the fact that in many cases the voter in question might only have cast one of the ballots personally, the other one having been cast (fraudulently) without his knowledge.
A coworker (not WA) told me that when he arrived to vote, that he had already voted. When he signed the form and his signature matched the copy on file (whereas "his" earlier signature did not) he was given a ballot and allowed to vote. Most likely conclusion: someone else forged a ballot in my friend's name, but I doubt there's any way to find who it was.
Posted by: supercat on January 12, 2005 04:07 PMBut it's a gaping loophole, even if a voter didn't intended to use it himself. What's to prevent someone else from finding the same list of doubly registered voters and entering a few additional ballots in one state or the other, with little fear of being caught?
I don't remember any followup on the story either, which worried me.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 12, 2005 04:18 PMNo Democratic party leader organized these voters — at least as far as I know. Instead, they decided, by themselves, perhaps after talking with friends, to vote twice.
I'd revise that slightly, like this:
No Democratic party leader officially organized these voters. Instead, they decided, individually, after talking with friends, or with other fellow Democrats, with a wink and a nod, to vote twice.
I believe that amongst the Democrats it rises a lttle higher than a mere unsolicited spontaneous act. It's how much higher that isn't known.
Posted by: jay bird on January 12, 2005 04:19 PMWhile Republicans here may not like the idea that people would change their legal residence in order to make their vote count in close elections, that is the situation that using the Electoral College system puts us in. Anyone for going to a straight popular vote for President? (We Democrats would love it! I think President Gore would agree.)
The fact that the majority of double-registrations are from Democrats is not unexpected, as a large percentage of snowbirds tend to be Democrats. Many are likely to be honest changes of registration, with no intent to vote twice.
I have changed residences, and while I put the information about my old registration on the card, I really have no idea whether or not my old registration was cancelled. If the county registrar did not send the information to my old home district (as they are supposed to) then I could be double registered without knowing. But that would be a very hard argument to make if I voted in my old home district.
I do support investigation and prosecution for anyone shown to have voted twice. Big fines. Jail time. Make an example out of them, and remove the temptation for party leaders to either turn a blind eye or encourage this crime.
Voter lists are supposed to be computerized. This seems like an easy-to-solve problem. Maybe some sort of national clearing house?
"Of those 46,000, 68 percent were Democrats, 12 percent were Republicans, and 16 percent were neither. (And no, the newspaper does not explain why the numbers don't add up to 100 percent.)
No Democratic party leader organized these voters — at least as far as I know. Instead, they decided, by themselves, perhaps after talking with friends, to vote twice."
Bob--it's a perfectly sensible construct. If you are not basing your conclusion on a random sample, you suffer from selection bias. If overwhelmingly Republican areas don't show double registrations to be 68% Democratic as well, then trying to show a Democratic bias to double registrations using that figure is flawed. Also, I'm aware of what the allegations in Florida referred to; not sure why it's material to this discussion. What IS material, is that a registration of "Democrat" doesn't mean much, particularly, apparently, in the Deep South, where old Dixiecrats still abound.
Since in many cases Democratic registrants in FL are voting reliably Republican, the utility of making distinctions based on party registration is suspect.
I guess that I must be considered a "troll" too, as it appears that "Democrat" and "troll" are synonyms in your dictionary.
Are you guys afraid that we Democrats might actually be found to have some valid points? That maybe we'll find some common ground with the Republicans here to actually solve some of the problems that plague both our parties?
There are people in both parties that consider open discussion with "the enemy" to be an offence that rates hanging (and for a second offence they get even worse) but most of the posters here are mature enough to deal with honest debate, even when they disagree.
Now, do you have something constructive to add? Feel free to answer, on-line or off. I've been brave enough to actually give my real name and e-mail address.
Posted by: John Barelli on January 12, 2005 05:08 PMWhile you could quibble that "Democrat" has
no particular meaning in Florida, you can't
plausibly claim that it doesn't in New York!
If someone is a Democrat in both Florida and New
York, the fact that he is a New York Democrat
certainly means something!
John B,
"Snowbirds" tend to be middle and upper-middle
class retires. That demographic is Republican.
Even in New York City those affluent enough to
own two homes are not that Democratic.
I fully expect that the vast majority of people registered in both NY and Florida have never voted in both states in the same election and have no intention of ever trying to do so. These duplicate registrations still present a serious opportunity for fraud - it's easy for someone to waslk into a polling place and claim to be a registered voter there who is still on the list but hasn't voted in years and has moved out of the area, and once they get a ballot and vote it, it's impossible to tell which ballot was theirs.
There is currently no program to ensure cancellation of old registrations when the person registers in another jurisdiction, nor when a person dies outside his registration jurisdiction. Both are prime areas for fraud, and require a national solution.
Nick
Posted by: NickM on January 13, 2005 12:18 AMI am quite sure that the Democrats in this country would perfer a straight popular vote to the Electoral College. The problem with this is that those of us who don't choose to live our lives in the larger cities would go unrepresented. It would definately make campaigning easier tho....a few stops in LA, NYC and similar places and you would be done. The rest of the country be damned! And I bet if one checked the ratio of Dem to Repub in the larger cities is far from even....gimme the College any day.
Posted by: BlueKnight on January 13, 2005 12:47 AMI am quite sure that the Democrats in this country would perfer a straight popular vote to the Electoral College. The problem with this is that those of us who don't choose to live our lives in the larger cities would go unrepresented. It would definately make campaigning easier tho....a few stops in LA, NYC and similar places and you would be done. The rest of the country be damned! And I bet if one checked the ratio of Dem to Repub in the larger cities is far from even....gimme the College any day.
Ok, perhaps I'm missing something. Are you saying that you like the fact that your one vote in, say Alaska counts for more than my one vote here in Washington?
Without the Electoral College, my one vote counts for exactly the same as your one vote. I think this is good. Of course, it would mean that Iowa's importance in the federal elections would be reduced, but it seems rather odd to most of the rest of us that Iowa's voters get a bigger say as to who becomes President than the rest of us.
One vote should equal one vote. Not only has there been several times where the President has lost the popular vote, but theoretically, it could be skewed much more than it has been.
Assuming that one candidate sweeps the smaller states and the other sweeps the larger, then approx 133.4 million votes (303 electoral) would win over 148 million (256 electoral.)
It gets worse if we assume that one candidate barely wins all the small states, with the other winning landslides in the larger ones. Worst case (admittedly this is extremely unlikely, but then again, a Governor's race with 2.8 million votes being only a couple hundred votes apart is pretty unlikely too):
66.7 million (with 303 electoral votes) winning over 214.7 million (with 256 electoral votes.)
Obviously, these are extreme cases, and I haven't factored in the few states that split their electoral votes, but you get the picture.
Worst case, each of those 66.7 million votes is worth more than three of the 214.7 million.
This is actually happening on a smaller-scale case:
200,000 Alaska citizens per Electoral College vote
535,000 Washington citizens per EC vote
664,000 California citizens per EC vote.
Hardly seems fair. My vote for President should count for as much (no more, no less) as any other US citizen's vote.
Posted by: John Barelli on January 13, 2005 10:45 AM