Yesterday, the two Seattle newspapers admitted
two things I have been arguing for some time. First, "mainstream" news organizations are not
much interested in charges of vote fraud — when the charges are made by Republicans.
Second, those on the left favor keeping the current level of vote fraud, or even increasing it.
The first admission came indirectly in this Seattle Times editorial, which includes this interesting line.
Republicans are concerned that hundreds of provisional ballots mistakenly were fed into machines before signatures or eligibility could be verified.
Just Republicans? Shouldn't every honest person be concerned? Shouldn't even journalists be concerned? Why doesn't the editorial say "We", rather than "Republicans"?
Now maybe I am making too much of what just may be awkward wording, since the editorial does call for reforms in the way provisional ballots are handled. But consider these points. The editorial mentions failures by the election officials in both Pierce and King counties, but has no criticism to make of the two Democratic elected officials responsible, Pierce County auditor Pat McCarthy and King County executive Rom Sims. Would the Times be quite so indifferent if elected Republicans had failed in the same way? Will they call for McCarthy and Sims to be defeated should they run for re-election? I doubt it. And the editorial skips these essential points: Putting provisional ballots into counting machines without checking them is illegal, and there is every reason to think that some of those provisional ballots were invalid.
Mark Trahant's column in the Seattle PI is more direct.
Every day I read new evidence about Washington's corrupt election process. There's evidence of dead voters, felons who voted, fictional registrations, people who voted twice and registered at phony addresses.
. . .
We, the people of Washington state, decided to go further than other states. Through our political process, we reached the philosophical conclusion that it's better to have more people voting, rather than fewer. This is the very premise that's at stake in this demand for a new election. The notion of an open election is not perfect because it means some people will cheat -- it's not ideal because a tiny slice of the population will register and vote illegally. But at least under an open process, every citizen has the opportunity to cast a vote.Now, consider the alternative course, an election system that is more closed than open. Yes, we could purge the voting rolls. We could demand identification and papers from every citizen who pursues the right to vote. We could make fraud the highest priority, rather than access.
I like that column. I don't agree with it, but I like it because it is honest. Trahant wants to preserve (or maybe even increase) the current level of vote fraud. He recognizes that measures such as the 1993 "Motor Voter" Act increased vote fraud, and he favors that because he thinks it also increased voter participation.
One can disagree with his assumption that allowing more vote fraud increases participation. In fact, I know of no evidence for that assumption, and some evidence against it. Efforts to make voting easier, such as the 1993 Motor Voter Act (or as some presciently called it, the "Motor Cheater" Act), have not increased voter participation. In general, in the United States, voting participation is highest in places with relatively clean elections, and lowest in places where fraud is rampant. One can argue about cause and effect in that correlation, but it seems plausible to me that allowing vote fraud makes voters more cynical and less likely to vote over time.
And I am disappointed that Trahant is not candid about the partisan effects of his desire to keep the current level of vote fraud, or even to increase it. There is simply no doubt that vote fraud helps Democrats much more often than it helps Republicans. Why should Republicans, independents, or even honest Democrats see that as fair? When I propose election reforms, I look for measures that could draw bipartisan support. I think that's a good approach — even for editors.
As I said, I like Trahant's column for its honesty. Other editors might choose to pretend that measures they back will not increase vote fraud, but Trahant does not. I prefer journalists to be openly in favor of vote fraud — if they must favor it.
But I don't think that Trahant is looking ahead as far as he should. Those who have studied American election history can tell you that fraud by one party encourages fraud by another. Democrats may have the edge now, but there is no reason to believe they will always have it. If we don't clean up our elections, individual Republicans, and probably even some groups that support the party, will begin to try to match Trahant's Democrats in vote fraud*. Some will even argue that some Republican fraud is necessary for fair elections, because only that way can Republicans balance the Democratic fraud. The end result of such competition will be elections no one trusts. So, unlike Trahant, I would rather see the two parties compete only for honest votes.
One reason I started my own site, and contribute to Sound Politics and Oh, That Liberal Media is that I do not trust the "mainstream" media on issues such as vote fraud. Those two admissions will help show you why I don't
(Trahant does have a legitmate point, even though he takes it way too far. In fact, we should not try to prevent all vote fraud.
How much vote fraud should we allow? Zero is the wrong answer, and so is "as little as possible". In this, vote fraud is similar to air pollution. Trying to reduce air pollution to zero (even excluding pollution from natural sources) is impossible. Trying to reduce air pollution (or vote fraud) below a certain level is undesirable because the costs are greater than the benefits. That said, I do not believe that we have gotten down to the optimum level of air pollution — and we certainly haven't gotten down to the optimum level of vote fraud.
To begin with, we should match our election practices to our election laws. For example, if our laws say that only citizens can vote, then we should check for citizenship at registration. (Many of you will know that non-citizens could vote in many parts of the United States, even into the 20th century. And, of course, some leftist cities are trying to restore that for local elections.)
Beyond that, we should enforce common sense rules similar to those used when we cash checks. I doubt whether King County would accept my check without a photo id; they shouldn't accept my vote without one, either. I am not sure how much farther we should go in controlling vote fraud. I would like to see some scientific studies of vote fraud so that we would have a better understanding of its extent.
*Stefan Sharkansky suggests, tongue in cheek, that Republicans might want to take Trahant at his word and start committing vote fraud too. Stefan even has an interesting suggestion for a place to start, Trahant's home of Bainbridge. Stefan is joking, but, if we continue to tolerate Democratic vote fraud, other Republicans will take the idea seriously.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.)
Posted by Jim Miller at January 31, 2005 01:14 PM | Email ThisWe need more double-voters, and dead people voting and non-citizens voting and phoney-address-voters voting?
We can never accept this kind of insane 'logic'.
Fight on for truth and legitimacy.
Requiring photo ID sounds reasonable, but be honest about the consequences. It means no more mail-in registration and/or no more absentee ballots. Maybe this is a fair tradeoff, but it would go against the consensus in WA and the trend nationwide.
The analogy between requiring photo ID to cash a check and to vote is flawed. Individuals have an immediate tangible incentive to cash fraudulent checks: they get money. Individuals have far less incentive to cast fraudulent votes. Political parties and other groups have somewhat more incentive to tinker with elections, but the public nature of our elections system, which isn't great at exposing individual cases of fraud, makes it fairly likely that organized efforts will be exposed.
Give me one GOOD reason NOT to show ID when voting? **CONVENIENCE isn't one of them either**
BTW: They did so this weekend in Iraq.
Posted by: smoke on January 31, 2005 01:50 PM"Trahant wants to preserve (or maybe even increase) the current level of vote fraud."
And I am disappointed that Trahant is not candid about the partisan effects of his desire to keep the current level of vote fraud, or even to increase it.
What Mr Trahant clearly states is that he considers it more important that every legal voter get to vote than that there be no chance of casting an illegal vote. Not once did he state that he approves of vote fraud.
I don't want fraud in elections, either, and I'm convinced that we can do things that will drastically reduce the amount of fraud without significantly closing off the opportunity for legal voters to cast their votes.
While I understand the frustration of many that post here, seeing fraudulent votes and assuming that they negated their legal ones, I also understand (and agree with) the concept that the state cannot put in obstacles to legal voters. That does not mean that I want to "preserve (or maybe even increase) the current level of vote fraud" nor does it mean that Mr. Trahant agrees with vote fraud.
It simply means that the state should not impose obstacles that prevent or deter a legal voter from casting his or her vote.
Mr. Miller insists on reading between the lines, using the concept that Democrats approve of fraud as a given. Sorry to disappoint you. We don't.
Posted by: John Barelli on January 31, 2005 01:51 PMI have two schnauzers who have lived here their entire lives...certainly Trabant would have no problem with that.
Posted by: South County on January 31, 2005 01:54 PMThe part that is missing in the article and analysis is the absentee voting which certainly increases voting fraud by having a million ballots in the mail system being mailed to people's houses some of whom may have moved or died.
Each county could reduce fraud instantly by eliminating absentee ballots completely. However, access and cost is balanced with the fraud rate.
I do like the analogy of pollution to fraud. It is always a balancing test, especially with 2.7 million ballots. It is also a case of diminishing returns.
However, there isn't any evidence that the felons or dead people voted for Gregoire more than Rossi though. The few cases which the actual votes of fraudulent ballots have been determined to have favored Rossi.
You are now seeing the results of this strategy in Wisconsin, probably Michigan and now here. I do not know if it is organized or not but there are too many similiar patterns out there for it to just be coincidence.
Posted by: jaybo on January 31, 2005 02:10 PMAs per eliminating mail in- no, no, no. no. Some of has have jobs that require travel. Unless you want to make each election day a mandatory holiday for all businesses, this ain't happening. You have to allow that some of us worker bees will be away on business.
Sound Politic's own research has shown that if auditors do their job, cheaters can be eliminated w/out inconveniencing legitimate voters. The majority of the inconvenience will fall on the cheaters.
Posted by: Andy on January 31, 2005 02:27 PMI wish I knew more about this but I guess participants were told to be tight-lipped about their "assignments"!!
This is exactly the kind of spin that made me understand, over the last year, how deeply committed the MSM is to supporting the American Left.
A paragraph that starts out this way intends to brush off whatever problem there is. There's no problem; this is just something that "the Republicans" are concerned about.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 31, 2005 02:33 PMNot exactly, but I have not heard a single Democratic politician support any legislation that protects MY vote.
Democratic politicians quite consistently favor legislation that makes cheating easier. And they quite consistently oppose legislation that would ensure that my LEGAL vote is not CANCELED by someone else's illegal vote.
From this I can only conclude that the Democrats are not interested in protecting my voting rights. Yeah, I take that personally.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 31, 2005 02:42 PMThe heart of his argument:
"This is the undercurrent of the drive for a new Washington election. The complaints about voter fraud cite concerns about "legitimate" voters, but what's unsaid is the desire to return an election system that's more closed than open. Fewer, not more."
Thus, Trahant is framing the argument in "open vs. closed." It's the same catchy hyperbole that Gregoire used with her, "Count every vote" cant. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that Gregoire wrote this piece herself.
This is not about open vs closed. (By the way, framing the argument in such simplistic terms flies in the face of the so-called "subtleties" that Democrats claimed Bush couldn't handle, but Kerry could.)
Nobody is talking about limiting voters to property owners, or women only (although I bet feminists would love that idea), or white only.
The point that POs most people is that an election can't happen that means anything without rules, and the rules should be enforced. If they aren't enforced, the election system can be gamed, which is exactly what happened.
If you don't like the rules, they can be changed for the next election. But, they can't be changed by default for the current one out of laziness or some "higher" objective.
I am uncomfortable with some apsects of the Republican Party, but I vote for them over and over again because of this sort of nonsense in Democratic Party.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on January 31, 2005 03:36 PMVoting is a right for every legitimate voter, but not for dead voters, felons, illegal aliens, people who vote more than once, people who vote in multiple states, unverified provisional ballots, etc. These type of illegal votes SHOULD NOT count.
Secondly there should be a responsibility that goes along with the right to vote. If someone is so disengaged or disinterested that they are so careless as to correctly punch a chad ballot or connect two arrows with a marker or properly use an electronic voting machine, then I question why election officials presume to have insight into how to enhance or doctor up the fudged or incomplete ballots. Incomplete or inaccurate ballots should not count, period. After 50 years, the election in Iraq yesterday was outstanding compared to the count-recount-recount-it's over fiasco in WA. Quite honestly the Democrat party at a state level and the national level seem bound & determined to "dumb" down the electorate when it comes to voting. I would think that Democrats would resent the insinuation that they are too dumb to know how to vote properly.
Posted by: RalphR on January 31, 2005 09:07 PMIt seems to me that this is purely a partisan device used by the Democrats to drive up their vote totals. I know I probably won't hear much disagreement on this idea, but it needs to be said.
Posted by: Jeff H. on January 31, 2005 10:51 PMThey talk about voting "access" being most important... what about the access of those people who effectively lose their vote due to the dilution of the ballot pool by these invalid votes?
Posted by: Clint on February 1, 2005 07:58 AMActually, if I'm walking (not driving) down the street and a police officer asks me for ID, I can politely ask "why do you need it, Officer?" If I don't like his answer, I can decline and walk away. The government cannot even insist that a person have an ID. (Although in my case it can, as I'm retired military.)
Driving and cashing checks (or even renting movies) are not rights. Voting is.
That having been said, there needs to be some sort of balance. I've suggested the option of a sworn statement with thumbprint for those that decline to give other proof of identity. It could be nothing more than a 3x5 card that gets scanned and compared (to prevent multiple voting) and goes into a file, unless evidence of fraud arises.
Posted by: John Barelli on February 1, 2005 09:18 AMI disagree with Jim Miller that Mark Trahant was being honest. I suspect Mark Trahant favors Democrats being elected. I also suspect that most fraudulent voters vote for Democrats. Mark Trahant claims to favor increased voter participation, but what his real goal is to rig the system in favor of Democrats. This is what he is not saying.
Posted by: PW on February 1, 2005 09:26 AMPW wrote:
I disagree with Jim Miller that Mark Trahant was being honest. I suspect Mark Trahant favors Democrats being elected.
Those two statements are not mutually exclusive.
In our last election, roughly half of the state favored Democrats being elected. As I have been challenged before to show proof of this, I refer you to the Secretary of State's web page.
Of course, they (and I) would be, by your definition, uninformed, as apparently "Democrat" in your dictionary means both "dishonest" and "stupid."
Sad to think that you believe that half of the people in the state (and country, for that matter) are both dishonest and stupid. I've always believed that most Republicans are honest people of good will, that simply have a different perspective on some of our problems than I have.
"Informed participation is what is desired. I high voter turnout is worthless if the voters don't have a clue about the issues and candidates."
When Republicans told me that they didn't want to prevent minorities and the poor from voting, they just wanted to prevent fraud, I believed them. From the evidence of your post, however, perhaps I should re-think that judgement, as you seem to have no problem disenfranchising anyone that you consider insufficiently "informed."
Posted by: John Barelli on February 1, 2005 09:55 AMWho you trying to kid? Utterly, totally, demonstrably ridiculous.
Posted by: JDM on February 4, 2005 06:07 PM