The fraudulent folks of ACORN are in the news again (remember the antics they were actually caught doing in our area?).
Stanley Kurtz at the National Review gives them an updated and interesting look that is worth some examination.
Posted by Eric Earling at May 29, 2008 09:17 PM | Email ThisHere we go again with another voting mess!
Now you know why the dem's are so dead set against voter ID.
Yet we can't question what this man believes?
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on May 30, 2008 07:07 AMLook what else ACORN stole:
http://www.ac4vr.com/index.php?id=5
I'm sure an indictment of some sort will be forthcoming in September.
Posted by: YLB on May 30, 2008 08:15 AMTranslation: In response to unsubstantiated claims and anecdotal reports of widespread Democratic "voter fraud", we invent our own unsubstantiated claims and anecdotal reports about THEM.
Boooooring.
Posted by: pudge on May 30, 2008 11:52 AMACORN is still around signing up low income folks to participate in our democracy.
ACVR is gone with the U.S. Attorney scandal winds and were so inept that they couldn't shell out a few dollars to keep their domain name from falling into ACORN's hands.
Again we'll see if the DOJ brings an indictment out around election time in a battleground state like they did 5 days before election day in 2006.
Posted by: YLB on May 30, 2008 12:12 PMACORN is still around committing voter registration fraud and that is a good thing? Only to a Democrat.
Workers accused of concocting the biggest voter-registration-fraud scheme in state history said they were under pressure from the community-organizing group that hired them to sign up more voters, according to charging papers filed Thursday.
To boost their output, the defendants allegedly went to the downtown Seattle Public Library, where they filled out voter-registration forms using names they made up or found in phone books, newspapers and baby-naming books.
One defendant "said it was hard work making up all those cards," and another "said he would often sit at home, smoke marijuana and fill out cards," according to a probable-cause statement written by King County sheriff's Detective Christopher Johnson.
Prosecutors in King and Pierce counties filed felony charges Thursday against seven employees of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, claiming they turned in more than 1,800 phony voter-registration forms, including an estimated 55 in Pierce County.
But then the tactic of paying for fraudulent voter registrations was one that the Democrats pioneered in Ohio, trading crack cocaine for the phony registrations.
Oh, but that is the NAACP. From the article in the link above:
"An Ohio man charged with filing fictitious voter-registration forms says he was paid in crack by a woman affiliated with the NAACP National Voter Fund. The Sheriff's Office of Defiance County arrested and charged Chad Staton, 22, of Defiance, with false registration, a felony of the fifth degree.
From the same SeaTimes article:
The defendants, who were paid employees and supervisors of ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, concocted the scheme as an easy way to get paid, not as an attempt to influence the outcome of elections, King County Prosecuting Attorney Dan Satterberg (R) said.
I put in the (R). Now what upstanding Republican wouldn't try to prosecute Democratic perfidy? Obviously a level-headed Republican who didn't want to get laughed out of court.
The nickel and dime stuff that is constantly cited by right wingers bears some resemblance to the 9/11 truth stuff. It is apparently easier for many right wingers to believe there's a vast conspiracy to keep them out of office rather than face the truth that their policies and the people they elect to office to implement those policies are terribly unpopular.
Posted by: YLB on May 30, 2008 01:52 PMFraud is fraud, no metter the motive. Besaide, who trusts the word of criminal fruad perpetrators anyway?
From the article:
"This is the worst case of voter-registration fraud in the history of the state of Washington. There has been nothing comparable to this," state Secretary of State Sam Reed said at a news conference with Satterberg, King County Executive Ron Sims (D) and acting U.S. Attorney Jeff Sullivan.
I put in the (D). Now what up[standing Democrat would stand side by side a Republican who was unfairly presecuting Democrat operatives from ACORN?
"The nickel and dime stuff that is constantly cited by right wingers bears some resemblance to the 9/11 truth stuff. "
I'd hardly call the "worst case of voter-registration fraud in the history of the state of Washington. " nickel and dime stuff. But then Al Capone didn't think his crimes were such a big deal either.
Posted by: pbj on May 30, 2008 03:19 PMYes it is a good thing that ACORN and other advocate organizations for the poor are encouraging their constituents to participate in our democracy. Just because you're poor and you may not have a steady address doesn't mean in the least that you shouldn't exercise your rights.
And it's just as good that sham organizations like the ACVR dry up and blow away even if it is to escape justice. I'm confident justice will catch up to them some day.
"worst case of voter-registration fraud in the history of the state of Washington. "
So sayeth Sam Reed but again Satterburg:
an easy way to get paid, not as an attempt to influence the outcome of elections
Which is it pbj? These people were being paid eight dollars an hour. They didn't want to do the work so they cut corners. All ACORN is guilty of is sloppy hiring and supervision. They still paid a stiff price for it. We'll see if they learned their lesson.
Many left-leaning folks think highly of Sam Reed. I don't since he tried to push that "no match, no vote" scam which was institutionalized vote suppression and thrown out in a lawsuit.
Talk about a sham organization. ACORN does none of those they are a Democrat front group engaged in FRAUD.
"an easy way to get paid, not as an attempt to influence the outcome of elections"
So if someone murders someone else and all they want to to is get paid, it is A-OK in your liberal book eh?
"Which is it pbj? These people were being paid eight dollars an hour. They didn't want to do the work so they cut corners. All ACORN is guilty of is sloppy hiring and supervision. They still paid a stiff price for it. We'll see if they learned their lesson."
Wait a minute. Aren't you liberals always the first in line to complain about Time Eyeman paying people to gather signatures for initiatives? Now you are paying money to people who apparently are too lazy to work properly and commit fraud.
What ACORN is guilty of is trying to rig the fundamental principle of Democracy along with their buddies at KCE. That is how you libeal socialists work. After all you hero Stalin said "It's Not the People Who Vote that Count; It's the People Who Count the Votes'"/ Well apparently it is also the people who make up the fictitious voters too. People like ACORN.
"Many left-leaning folks think highly of Sam Reed. "
Of course you do. He is feckless and toothless and you do end runs around him when you steal elections.
In Kansas City Missouri, FRAUD ,
On September 7, 2004, a Columbus, Ohio grand jury indicted ACORN employee and felony parolee Kevin Eugene Dooley for election fraud. The indictment charges Dooley forged a signature to a voter registration form.
In 2004, the Wisconsin Election Commission reported that between 4600 and 5300 more ballots were cast than voters who can be accounted for in Wisconsin (a state in which Democrat John Kerry defeated President Bush). The report states: "18 persons were sworn in as Deputy registrars in 2004 that were convicted felons and under Department of Correction Supervision. Of the 15 felons that listed a sponsoring organization, eight named ACORN as their sponsoring agency.".[19]
During the 2004 election, an ACORN member named Mac Stuart was working as a coordinator for minority voter outreach for ACORN's voter registration effort in Miami-Dade County. Stuart reported seeing ACORN workers copying voter registration forms, which is illegal under Florida law, and segregating voter registration forms for Republicans that were not subsequently turned into the County. After Stuart reported these irregularities to the election officials, ACORN fired him.
In August 2004 a lawsuit was filed in Albuquerque alleging that New Mexico Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron improperly exempted individuals who registered to vote through canvassers from requirements that some new registrants submit ID at polling places.[21] In a court case, ACORN director Matt Henderson invoked his Fifth Amendment rights when asked if his group made illegal copies of voter registration cards before submitting them. The Albuquerque Tribune claims he told them this was done.
In January 2005 two ex-ACORN workers were convicted in Denver of perjury for submitting false voter registrations
ACORN was investigated in 2006 for submitting false voter registrations in St. Louis, Missouri. 1,492 fraudulent voter registrations were identified, some from the dead and others for underage voters who were not aware they had been registered by ACORN.
Individual and organizational donors to ACORN include the Sandler Family Supporting Foundation and the Democracy Alliance.
The Democracy Alliance is a donors collaborative established by a group of liberal political activists, labor unions and donors.
Prominent members include George Soros, Peter B. Lewis, Susie Tompkins Buell, trial lawyer Guy Saperstein, trial lawyer Fred Baron, movie director Rob Reiner, Norman Lear, Drummond Pike, Rob McKay, Rutt Bridges, Patricia Stryker, Rob Glaser, Rob Johnson, Anne Bartley, Jonathan Heller, Charles Rodgers, Gail Furman, Davidi Gilo, Rachel Pritzker Hunter and the Service Employees International Union.
Posted by: pbj on May 30, 2008 07:15 PMWhat is organization so very misnamed the "Democracy Alliance"?
They are after anything but Democracy. They are an extremely secretive organization of big moneyed liberals and socialists. Their most prominent member is billionaire George Soros.
Soros seeks a permanent Democrat majority. And he will fund all sorts of front groups to get it too:
* Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)
* America Votes
* Center for Community Change
* Data Warehouse
* EMILY's List
* Sierra Club
* USAction
* Air America Radio
* Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW)
* Media Matters for America
* Center for Independent Media
* People for the American Way
* Center for American Progress
* Economic Policy Institute
* Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
* Center for Progressive Leadership
* New Democrat Network
* Progressive Majority
Apparently he doesn't care if the front groups, such as Air America, defraud children's charities.
But I am sure to socialists like ACORN member YLB, that stealing $875,000 from the Gloria Wise Boys and Girls Club is just nickel and dime stuff eh YLB/ACORN propagandist???
Posted by: pbj on May 30, 2008 07:39 PMCome over to HA more often. It's really priceless to see you go into orbit with this conspiratorial moronic nonsense you've vomited here.
Ooohh Soros so scary. As if Moon, Scaife, Murdoch and too many other rich right wingers whose propaganda you imbibe daily didn't even freaking exist.
So you attribute ACORN to Soros? Gee why couldn't Scaife, Moon or someone else fund ACVR?
Maybe the legal issues were getting a bit too hot?
In any case ACORN is still here and ACVR isn't and ACORN owns ACVR's domain name!!!!
How freaking competent is your team?
Posted by: YLB on May 30, 2008 08:28 PMNarcissism runs rampant with ACORN and fellow progressives. ACORN is not directly attributed to Soros, but when you follow the money and you will find that Soros's 527 groups and other funds and in some cases, hedge funds are funding ACORN.
Posted by: KS on May 30, 2008 09:38 PMhttp://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/29/obamas.first.campaign/index.html
"As a community organizer, he had helped register thousands of voters. But when it came time to run for office, he employed Chicago rules to invalidate the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers."
"The move denied each of them, including incumbent Alice Palmer, a longtime Chicago activist, a place on the ballot. It cleared the way for Obama to run unopposed on the Democratic ticket in a heavily Democrat district.
"That was Chicago politics," said John Kass, a veteran Chicago Tribune columnist. "Knock out your opposition, challenge their petitions, destroy your enemy, right? It is how Barack Obama destroyed his enemies back in 1996 that conflicts with his message today. He may have gotten his start registering thousands of voters. But in that first race, he made sure voters had just one choice."
Yes completely unknown in Republican politics. From Allen Raymond's "How to Rig an Election":
With Forbes on the New York ballot and our petitions secure, the next thing to do was go through George W. Bush's petitions looking for suspect signatures we could challenge. The first line of defense in any election is to try to get the other guy thrown off the ballot-if you don't have an opponent, you win...Sure enough, Dubya's team had heaped their petitions with phony signatures. One guy had filled his pages with the names of cartoon characters such as Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck and gave all of them addresses around New York"..
Yes, I know. This Raymond book must have been funded by Soros.
Posted by: YLB on May 30, 2008 11:10 PMI wouldn't visit the equine anal blog if you paid me. Filth and vulgarity is what passes for debate over there.
I have posted all my sources for the independent reader to verify, so knowing George Soros funds ACORN as well as other socialist enterprises and seeks a "permanent Democrat majority" is obvious to even the most uneducated amongst us.
"Ooohh Soros so scary. As if Moon, Scaife, Murdoch and too many other rich right wingers whose propaganda you imbibe daily didn't even freaking exist."
Ah the ad hominem fallacy. What took you so long?
So you attribute ACORN to Soros? Gee why couldn't Scaife, Moon or someone else fund ACVR?"
Maybe because that isn't true. And what the hell is ACVR anyway? You keep referring to them. I never heard of them.
"Maybe the legal issues were getting a bit too hot?"
What legal issues would those be? ACORN's constant legal issues with the laws against voter registration fraud?
"In any case ACORN is still here and ACVR isn't and ACORN owns ACVR's domain name!!!!"
You forgot to close with "naaa na na na naaa naaa". Conidering that I never heard of ACVR, I could care less. The mafia is still around too even though Elliot Ness passed on. What's your point?
Posted by: pbj on May 31, 2008 10:09 AMPlease tell us this name of this supposed person making up phony registration for George W Bush. Please provide a link.
You can't because it is all made up crap. It is what the legal system call hearsay.
Posted by: pbj on May 31, 2008 10:15 AMDon't know ACVR? I left a link in 3. Gee, use the google. Is that beyond you? Once you know what ACVR is, use the google for ACVR here in the soundpolitics domain. People have discussed it here.
In 17 I was quoting a passage from a book. Is that really so hard for you perceive? Use the Amazon. The author is a former Republican operative. You really think I made that up? Ballot petitions are pretty much public records for all intents and purposes. Why would Raymond lie about that?
Posted by: YLB on May 31, 2008 03:08 PMGet back to my original thought in 3. Apparently many here believe ACORN is a perfidious operation. Indeed, so perfidious, they now own the domain name of a now defunct GOP front group, the ACVR, whose mission was to promote voter id laws.
The same GOP front group whose former head, Thor Hearne, recently submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Indiana's Voter ID law.
"The author is a former Republican operative."
So what ! David Brock was also once a Republican operative, but his mind has been brainwashed by the progressive left and he is involved with Media Matters and has lost his credibility.
Posted by: KS on May 31, 2008 05:16 PMOoooh how dare they insist that only US citizens be allowed to vote. The nerve of those people. And to steal a domain name, how clever on the part of the ACORN crooks. Why that's NEVER been done before.
The same GOP front group whose former head, Thor Hearne, recently submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Indiana's Voter ID law.
Did that group steal $875,000 from the Gloria Wise children's charity like Air America, a Democrat propaganda arm did?
And what is wrong with a voter ID law? You don't think the integrity of our elections should be protected? You want illegals and felons voting?
Posted by: pbj on May 31, 2008 05:20 PMFirst thank you for your service. It is reprehensible that the Ron Paul supporters would behave that way. However, after having seen some here like Andrew Brown, I guess I am not really that surprised. The Ronulans aren't Republicans, they are a cult that knew they couldn't get anywhere with the loser libertarian party and so tried to hijack the Republican Party.
Nevertheless, I am truly thankful for your service. Thank you seems so small for keeping us free, but know that it is heart felt.
Posted by: pbj on May 31, 2008 07:15 PMWhy didn't ACVR shell out a few dollars to protect the name? Again, how competent is your team? Not very I'd say.
Voter ID laws in my view are just capricious hoops for people to jump through that in practice act to suppress LEGAL votes like the votes of the Catholics nuns who were turned away recently in Indiana.
I've seen people here say they can't tolerate even one illegal vote. I think it's a tragedy when citizens (like those Catholic nuns) are blocked from exercising their rights on election day.
I've seen no credible evidence that voting or registration fraud or undocumented immigrants voting are as widespread problem like most here imagine requiring draconian measures that in practice suppress legal votes. Show me the numbers.
No I don't want felons and illegals voting. I want a citizen who has a right to participate to be able to participate on the day it counts.
Posted by: YLB on May 31, 2008 07:53 PMI don't even know who the hell they are. How is that "my team"? I suppose if they were as criminal as the Democrat Propaganda arm Air America, they could have stolen $875,000 from the Gloria Wise Chidren's charity. Is that what you want them to do?
"Voter ID laws in my view are just capricious hoops for people to jump through that in practice act to suppress LEGAL votes like the votes of the Catholics nuns who were turned away recently in Indiana."
What nuns in Indiana? Got a source, a link for that or is this more hearsay on your part?
"I've seen no credible evidence that voting or registration fraud or undocumented immigrants voting are as widespread problem like most here imagine requiring draconian measures that in practice suppress legal votes. Show me the numbers."
That is because you close your eyes to it. There are illegals registering to vote in Texas and if you go look back at our very close governor race in Washington State it turns out that non-citizens voted.
"No I don't want felons and illegals voting. I want a citizen who has a right to participate to be able to participate on the day it counts."
Well in the 2004 Washington Governor's race scores of felons voted illegally.
So don't tell me it isn't a problem.
According the this Seattle Times article (hardly a bastion of right wingers):
129 felons were recorded as having voted in the 2004 Governor's race with another 23 having "likely voted".
Gregoire "won" the 2004 election by 129 votes. As Gomer Pile would say "SURPRISE,SURPRISE,SURPRISE".
Don't tell me it isn't a problem.
Now, do you have any actual evidence to present (links and sources) or just more anectdotes and hearsay?
The point of the CNN article about Obama is that he claims that he is not a typical politician that he is a uniter, yet he did exactly what he claims he is against. To me he is just another politician.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on May 31, 2008 10:15 PMHere's the story about the nuns:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/694mrc
Posted by: YLB on June 1, 2008 12:07 AMACVR just before they closed shop
ACVR just after they closed shop
Posted by: YLB on June 1, 2008 12:18 AMhttp://www.slate.com/id/2166589/
Posted by: YLB on June 1, 2008 12:30 AMSaying that they intended to commit fraud, but didn't mean to actually commit fraud, is just about the weakest argument you could possibly come up with.
They intended to register fake people to vote. This is voter fraud, with malicious intent. By definition. Whether they intended to actually vote with those fake registrations is irrelevant.
Just because they don't intend to doesn't mean they, or someone else, won't: once those registrations are in, it is easy to use them to vote. Duh. It's sad you even have to be told this.
ACORN voter fraud in 12 states, illegal voters providing the margin in the Washington State Governor's elections is an isolated incident and then you throw in ONE, I say ONE and only ONE Indiana nun case where it was there fellow nuns that were too senile to meet the law?
Nope, contrary to your hearsay and lack of evidence I have provided multiple cases of the fraudulent voting. You sir have only one anectdotal case.
The Supreme Court has ruled 6 to 3 that the Idiana law does not violate the constitution.
And from your very own link it looks like the nuns will be fine:
"Nonetheless, she said, the convent will make a "very concerted effort" to get proper identification for the nuns in time for the general election."
And look, here is part of your very own article you didn't want people to see:
"Sean Greene, of the nonpartisan electionline.org, was monitoring precincts in the Lafayette area of Tippecanoe County. "It's going pretty well," he said, despite long lines. "Most of the people I've seen today are prepared and used to this. They have their IDs out already.
That thought was echoed in South Bend, where Elizabeth Bridges, 63, said half of the people working in her voting precinct were family members, but still she showed her ID.
"I think the law is a good thing because a lot of people are crooked," she said.
John Parker III, agreed.
"I think it's a good thing because I don't want anyone coming in and voting for me," he said. "Someone could come in here and just use my name." "
So the good people of Indiana think the law is great because "a lot of people are crooked". Sounds like a testimonial for the law to me. Got any other links or is that it? Because if that is all you got, you r wasting your time. Your article supports the case for voter ID laws more than it is against it.
But feel free to post more articles supporting my position! ;)
Posted by: pbj on June 1, 2008 01:03 AMUnder their "ABOUT" link we see:
The American Center for Voting Rights (ACVR) is a non-partisan 501(c)(3) legal and education center committed to defending the integrity of the election process and working to increase public confidence in the fairness and outcome of elections. ACVR will protect the integrity of the election process by ensuring the constitutional right of all citizens are upheld to participate in elections in an equal and meaningful way.
ACVR activities include voter education and outreach as well as legal defense of voters civil rights and voting rights. Included among the group?s activities will be sponsoring symposiums and conferences with prominent legal scholars, election officials and academic experts to address ways to improve the election process and increase public confidence that these processes contribute to fair and honest elections.
Defending the integrity of the election process and working to increase public confidence in the fairness and outcome of election. Obviously a bunch of criminals. How dare they! I guess no one ever told them how outrageous it was to have elections with integrity or have public confidence in elections.
You need a course in logic. Your thesis is that vote fruad doesn't exist. All I need is one case of vote fraud and I have provided a counterexample to your thesis. You want to put logic on its ear an tell people that when illegals and felons vote and alter the ourcome in cases, LIKE THE WASHINGTON STATE GOVERNOR'S ELECTION, it doesn't matter.
If you are so concerned about voters being disenfranchised, I suggest to start with the Democrat party itself.
You have some nerve to come lecture us about the fraudulent ACORN and wag your finger about disenfranchised voters when your very own party is disenfranchising half the voters of Florida and Missouri.
Posted by: pbj on June 1, 2008 01:29 AMYou've made many many false statements. It's the old if you can't argue honestly just throw up a tidal wave of nonsense and hope the other side just goes away. I'll return to this later but I've got a few things to do right now.
In short you've lied about my thesis. I'll come back later to address this.
pudge: your argument makes no sense. Eric's post implies that ACORN as a whole intends to commit vote fraud. The evidence does not support this. ACORN has been fined heavily in WA State for what I see as their lax supervision practices allowing people in their employ to break the law for narrow financial gain. ACORN has been warned to clean up their act or face criminal prosecution. Fair enough in my book. I see nothing wrong with ACORN wanting to encourage their constituents to participate in our democracy and neither should anyone else.
Posted by: YLB on June 1, 2008 11:22 AMReally? Show me one and provide some evidence rather than your typical hearsay. I want links, source proof evidence. Not some snarky remark without anything to back it up. You are the one who cannot argue honestly.
I have not lied about your thesis. There is vote fraud, I have proven it. You are either arguing there is an acceptable amount of vote fraud or that vote fraud doesn't exist. Please succinctly state your thesis if you feel it has been misrepresented.
Answer this question, I think you'll dodge them though:
1) Is there voting fraud in America? Yes or No.
"Eric's post implies that ACORN as a whole intends to commit vote fraud. "
Well let's follow this shall we? Who is funding ACORN - Democrat special interest groups like billionaire George Soros who admittedly seeks a "permanent Democrat majority".
When they commit fraud, who benefits? Democrats who are able to rally hordes of fraudulent voters to swamp the polls on election day. One only need consider the 129 vote margin that the current Democrat selectee of the Governor's office benefited from to understand how even a small number of fraudulent votes can change the outcome of close elections.
ACORN has been caught committing fraud, found guilty in a court of law. That is FACT. I could care less what a criminal states is their intention. That is irrelevant. It is their actions that are relevant, not their intention. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Your problem is that you look at this as "my side" versus "your side". The only "side" should be those wanting honest elections. Any other position is an argument for fraud.
Posted by: pbj on June 1, 2008 12:32 PMDemocrats in general commit vote fraud. A good example is the case of the East St Louis Democrat Party.
Posted by: pbj on June 1, 2008 03:06 PMYou said, "pudge: your argument makes no sense. Eric's post implies that ACORN as a whole intends to commit vote fraud."
I was specifically referring to YOUR ARGUMENT that DEFENDED the actions of ACORN employees IN A SPECIFIC CASE.
If you don't want me to refute your argument, then don't make that argument. Seems like a simple rule of thumb to me, but apparently you have trouble understanding it.
"The evidence does not support this. ACORN has been fined heavily in WA State for what I see as their lax supervision practices allowing people in their employ to break the law for narrow financial gain."
Call it what you want, but the FACT is that their paid employees engaged in voter fraud on behalf of their employer, and that this is far from the only example of it happening.
"ACORN has been warned to clean up their act or face criminal prosecution. Fair enough in my book."
Yes, and also fair for me to point out the FACT that their employees engaged in voter fraud on their behalf.
"I see nothing wrong with ACORN wanting to encourage their constituents to participate in our democracy and neither should anyone else."
And no one DOES see anything wrong with that. Please stop being dishonest, mmmkay?
Posted by: pudge on June 1, 2008 03:21 PMI'll take you first. A target rich environment to be sure.
I was specifically referring to YOUR ARGUMENT that DEFENDED the actions of ACORN employees IN A SPECIFIC CASE.
You're lying. I have not defended the actions of the ACORN employees in the recent case where ACORN was fined $25,000 here in WA State. I have defended ACORN itself which Eric and many other right wingers like pbj seem to believe is intent on breaking the law in many states. I believe the evidence does not support this. If the FBI is able to prove conspiracy at the top of ACORN to commit vote fraud through wiretaps or some such means (shouldn't be too hard these days) then I'll accept this.
Call it what you want, but the FACT is that their paid employees engaged in voter fraud on behalf of their employer,
That is a bald-faced lie pudge. And you of all people should know better than that. Dan Satterburg stated that ACORN employees acted for their own personal gain NOT to influence the outcome of any election. There is no evidence to support that employees did what they did at the behest of the ACORN leadership. ACORN's leadership goals AFAIK is in part to sign up people to vote LEGALLY.
Yes, and also fair for me to point out the FACT that their employees engaged in voter fraud on their behalf.
You have not proven this so-called "FACT" so I don't believe it is "fair".
And no one DOES see anything wrong with that.
Good. I hope all people who self-identify as conservative and are happy with being considered on the right see nothing wrong with an organization that seeks to register low income citizens to vote.
Posted by: YLB on June 1, 2008 04:04 PMWell we're waiting Polyanna. So far your shooting blanks.
"I have defended ACORN itself which Eric and many other right wingers like pbj seem to believe is intent on breaking the law in many states."
They HAVE broken the law in several states!!!!!!! At least 12 at last count. How dense are you? I know it takes someone with a real low IQ to be an ACORN goon, but dude, you take the cake.
"I hope all people who self-identify as conservative and are happy with being considered on the right see nothing wrong with an organization that seeks to register low income citizens to vote."
Well if that was what they actually did, perhaps not. Obviously those on the left have problems with an organization defending the integrity of the election process and working to increase public confidence in the fairness and outcome of election.
You're lying. I have not defended the actions of the ACORN employees in the recent case where ACORN was fined $25,000 here in WA State.
Uh.
Call it what you want, but the FACT is that their paid employees engaged in voter fraud on behalf of their employer,
That is a bald-faced lie pudge. And you of all people should know better than that. Dan Satterburg stated that ACORN employees acted for their own personal gain NOT to influence the outcome of any election. There is no evidence to support that employees did what they did at the behest of the ACORN leadership. ACORN's leadership goals AFAIK is in part to sign up people to vote LEGALLY.
See, exactly my point. You are doing it again: defending the actions of ACORN employees in this case. You just accused me of lying when I said you did that, and now you're doing it again. Very odd.
Anyway, what is a lie? They did commit voter fraud. And it was on behalf of their employer. I did not say it was at the BEHEST of ACORN, but on BEHALF of ACORN. Those words are not the same, and do not mean the same thing. Of course it was done on behalf of ACORN. They were working for ACORN. That is why ACORN was fined. Duh.
Whether it was the behest of ACORN does not imply it was not on behalf of ACORN, or whether they did it for personal gain does not imply it was not voter fraud.
So where was the lie?
Good. I hope all people who self-identify as conservative and are happy with being considered on the right see nothing wrong with an organization that seeks to register low income citizens to vote.
No one has any problem with that whatsoever, as long as it does not result in illegal registrations, which it often does. I've been close to two examples of it: the ACORN example, the one you know about, and the one in Southern California in the Bob Dornan race, where it was found as a matter of fact by Congress that hundreds of noncitizens illegally voted. Not that this is new; we saw it through much of the 20th century, and Chicago is infamous for it.
I do not assume any given people are registering illegally. I do, however, assume that it is possible that it is happening, and that at some point it will happen, and that we should have safeguards in place, including stiff penalties for if they do. ACORN -- maybe because it comes from the top, or maybe because their cause simply tends to attract the wrong kind of people who end up making ACORN look bad -- has a history of this, and so I treat them with the highest amount of skepticism. They have no one to blame but themselves.
Note that I have myself stood AGAINST efforts to require ID and citizenship proof to vote *unless* there are two strong provisions met: a. free IDs for those who do not have one already, and b. a means to meet before a board of some kind to "prove" citizenship in the absence of documentation, which some people may not have. And I've also defended the rights of homeless people to use City Hall as am address. I believe strongly in the right of every citizen to vote, and this is more important than preventing illegal voters (though the latter is important too).
On the other hand, I also strongly oppose same-day registration, because it is an invitation to fraud. It is not uncommon -- and not preventable -- for people to show up just to vote, pretending to be homeless, on election day, in states with same-day registration and no residency proof required for homeless people. So yes, by all means, let's allow homeless people to get ID, register, and vote. But have them do the registration part early, so we can have a sane and orderly and relatively fraud-free process.
Posted by: pudge on June 1, 2008 08:10 PMNo. Where have I defended actions such as people sitting at a table at the library and filling out voter registration forms from phone books and such? I've haven't done that anywhere and I'd never do that.
Instead I have tried to separate ACORN leadership's goals of registering low income people to vote from the actions of some of its employees who have violated the laws because they didn't want to do the work. The fine that was levied in this case seemed pretty harsh but I guess that's what it takes to send a clear message. We'll see if it's heeded.
I have also tried to draw a contrast between an organization that still exists and AFAIK still tries to register people to vote (no matter that it has "fraudulent folks" in it as Eric says) with another organization that no longer exists for very mysterious reasons. Thor Hearne, the former head of ACVR, refuses to talk to the press about ACVR and doesn't even list it on his resume. It has even been documented that someone from his law firm in Missouri has gone so far as to scrub his connection to ACVR from articles in Wikipedia!
Who seems more afraid of prosecution? ACORN leadership or ACVR leadership?
Posted by: YLB on June 1, 2008 08:53 PMAgreed. The employees in question did violate the law.
And it was on behalf of their employer. I did not say it was at the BEHEST of ACORN, but on BEHALF of ACORN. Those words are not the same, and do not mean the same thing. Of course it was done on behalf of ACORN. They were working for ACORN. That is why ACORN was fined. Duh.
I accept the burden of being precise in exchanges with you pudge but still I must quibble. The common meaning of "behalf" in this context, imho, is that the employees acted AT THE DIRECTION of their employer. Aren't all employees supposed to do the job assigned to them by their immediate supervisor? As I've stated before I've seen no evidence that those employees committed registration fraud at the direction of ACORN management higher than the "ringleader" mentioned in the seatimes article. The purpose of the fine in my judgement was to deter any further lax supervision on the part of ACORN management resulting in harm to the integrity of the voting rolls.
Posted by: YLB on June 1, 2008 09:36 PMYou seem obsessed with this ACVR group. Do you have links and verifiable evidence that they have engaged in vote fraud? If so, please share it with us. And what does this group have to do with ACORN anyway? Are they a subsidiary of ACORN?
Posted by: pbj on June 1, 2008 09:54 PMAny good legislator would insist on quantifying the problem before crafting a legislative remedy. How big is the problem? My gut feeling is that it's not so big as to influence the outcome of any election beyond the most local. I would need to see what safeguards are already in place and what are the existing penalties before crafting new ones. I'll have to find time to look over the deliberations for the Indiana law in this context.
Another principle of good legislation is first do no harm. I'd need to see that no segments of the voting public are unduly encumbered from exercising their franchise.
Right now I'm opposed to photo id as well the "no match, no vote" laws that were struck down recently in both WA and FL. If legitimate voters are turned away at the polls on the day it counts, that's unacceptable to me. I have less of a problem with other looser forms of id requirement like utility bills and the like but still I see scenarios where legitimate voters are turned away.
Posted by: YLB on June 1, 2008 10:22 PMI'm not obsessed with ACVR but I just find it very interesting and a bit funny that ACORN owns their domain name.
I sure have provided plenty of links in this thread. Click on them and judge for yourself about the fraud angle. I'm sure you'll find it very interesting that ACORN still exists, still registers low income voters AFAIK and ACVR, a group formed to promote voter photo id laws, NO LONGER exists and their domain name is now owned by ACORN.
Gee what happened? Isn't promoting voter photo id laws a worthy enough cause? Who were these clowns in ACVR that they couldn't spend a few bucks to keep their domain name from falling into the hands of ACORN?
Could the machinations of Soros be at work here? /snark
ACVR has no real relation to ACORN beyond their domain name now being owned by ACORN.
Posted by: YLB on June 1, 2008 10:39 PMAnd what has that to do with ACORN's vote fraud?
"I sure have provided plenty of links in this thread. Click on them and judge for yourself about the fraud angle. I'm sure you'll find it very interesting that ACORN still exists, still registers low income voters AFAIK and ACVR, a group formed to promote voter photo id laws, NO LONGER exists and their domain name is now owned by ACORN.
Gee what happened? Isn't promoting voter photo id laws a worthy enough cause? Who were these clowns in ACVR that they couldn't spend a few bucks to keep their domain name from falling into the hands of ACORN?
Could the machinations of Soros be at work here? /snark
Wow. So a billionaire is able to outspend a single guy and shut him up and you are fine with that, braggin and even giddy about it. My how things change. The proletariat becomes the bourgeoisie.
Liar! Lying to the max!
Where is your condemnation of your party's disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan voters? Where is the outrage?
What you really mean to say is that when the cheating schemes of the Democrats are foiled, that is when you are worried about "disenfranchisement" but when it works to your political ends, you are all for it.
Posted by: pbj on June 1, 2008 10:57 PMNo. Where have I defended actions such as people sitting at a table at the library and filling out voter registration forms from phone books and such? I've haven't done that anywhere and I'd never do that.
Um. The part where you tried to imply that what they did wasn't that bad because it was merely for "personal gain."
Instead I have ...
No. You brought up the "personal gain" canard several times. If ACORN did not direct them, as you believe, then why bother addressing their individual motives? Only to make it seem like it's not that bad. But here's a hint: motive is irrelevant in whether someone is guilty of a crime, most of the time, and this is no exception. All that matters is that they intended to do what they did, which they clearly did. They committed voter fraud.
Who seems more afraid of prosecution? ACORN leadership or ACVR leadership?
ACORN, obviously, because they are the ones who have actually done illegal things.
I accept the burden of being precise in exchanges with you pudge but still I must quibble.
It's sad that anyone would see that as a burden, but whatever.
The common meaning of "behalf" in this context, imho, is that the employees acted AT THE DIRECTION of their employer.
Incorrect. That is not the most common meaning, it is not the meaning I used, and it is not the meaning in law.
As I've stated before I've seen no evidence that those employees committed registration fraud at the direction of ACORN management higher than the "ringleader" mentioned in the seatimes article
And I never said or implied that they did.
Any good legislator would insist on quantifying the problem before crafting a legislative remedy.
We all know, as a matter of factual record, that there is a problem of ineligible people voting. We also know that the fewer safeguards in place, generally speaking, the more likely people are to try to violate the law. So you put any reasonable safeguards in place that you can. If those safeguards are a significant burden, it is at THAT point that you need to weigh the harm done by the safeguards versus the harm done by not having them (or come up with other ones).
But what did I say that is a significant burden? Having a free ID and voter registration several weeks before election day is not a significant burden. Requiring proof of citizenship (with means of accomodating those without documentation) COULD be a significant burden, and that is where you weigh it against the alternative.
How big is the problem? My gut feeling is that it's not so big as to influence the outcome of any election beyond the most local.
We know, as a matter of fact and record, that the previously exercised potential of the problem is great enough to influence a statewide election. There is no doubt of this. In Bob Dornan's 1996 race in Southern California, it was found that 748 votes were cast by non-citizens (with 124 of those caught by election officials, leaving 624 uncaught). He lost by 979 votes. If all those 624 voted for his opponent -- which is not very unlikely, considering he was anti-illegal immigrant and his opponent was a Hispanic woman -- that leaves a 355-vote margin. Maybe there were more illegal votes that weren't caught.
But regardless of whether the election was stolen from Dornan by illegal votes, we know that if we had that level of illegal voting in Washington in 2004, then (pro-rated for the larger population, and assuming all of them voted for Gregoire) Rossi should have won by about 25,000 votes.
Now, Washington is not Southern California, Rossi is not Dornan, and Gregoire is not Sanchez. Surely any noncitizen voting we have is a smaller number, and surely they would not break as heavily for Gregoire as they did for Sanchez. Still, it is easy to imagine how illegal voters could have accounted for the tiny difference in the 2004 race.
Another principle of good legislation is first do no harm. I'd need to see that no segments of the voting public are unduly encumbered from exercising their franchise.
I already addressed that in my previous post. If you think requiring ID, and offering a free ID to people who don't have one, is an encumberment, then I don't know what else to say, except: that's pretty stupid. The only other requirement I mentioned was citizenship, which I fully admitted IS a burden to some people, and that it can only be enacted if we can have safeguards in place to make sure that it doesn't exclude actual citizens.
Right now I'm opposed to photo id as well the "no match, no vote" laws that were struck down recently in both WA and FL. If legitimate voters are turned away at the polls on the day it counts, that's unacceptable to me.
So um, bring your ID, and if you lose it, fill out a provisional ballot. What's the problem? No one in WA would have been turned away in any case. You're confused. Anyone can fill out a provisional ballot. I don't know about FL.
The ID is simply used to match the registration to the face to make sure the person is a legal voter. But there are other methods to do that, and that is what provisional ballots are for, so that those ballots can be doublechecked before being counted. But if they are legal voters, their votes will still be counted. There is no problem here.
Of course, in Washington, we have mostly all-mail voting. Gee. I wonder why.
My brother-in-law's father-in-law is a lifelong Democrat from Mississippi. He was the white chaplain of all-black Tougaloo College in the 50s and 60s. He fought for the rights of blacks. He still has a scar on his face from the KKK for his efforts. He was one of only two at-large delegates from the mostly black Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party to the 1964 Democratic National Convention.
His name id Ed King. He now goes around the world helping out with elections. Remember, he's still a Democrat. He was honored at the Democratic convention in 2004. And he told me that all-mail voting is a recipe for rampant fraud, and that it is usually used IN ORDER TO commit fraud.
The only secure way of voting is to have people show up in person, themselves, and be identified. I think photo ID is a perfectly reasonable, and absolutely unburdensome (as we have provisional ballots), method of doing this. I think all-mail voting is a scourge upon democracy itself. And I firmly believe that this is precisely why some -- not nearly all, but some -- Democrats support it. They WANT people to be able to commit fraud easily, either by voting as noncitizens, voting for other people who don't want to or can't vote themselves, or various other means.
The greatest safeguard we could have against voter fraud is to limit mail voting to those who NEED it. And that is why it won't happen.
Posted by: pudge on June 2, 2008 12:16 AMNo. You brought up the "personal gain" canard several times. If ACORN did not direct them, as you believe, then why bother addressing their individual motives? Only to make it seem like it's not that bad. But here's a hint: motive is irrelevant in whether someone is guilty of a crime, most of the time, and this is no exception. All that matters is that they intended to do what they did, which they clearly did. They committed voter fraud.
Well you insist on lying about what I said, taking my words out of context. So I'll leave it that. No pudge I don't excuse people who break the law. I wouldn't excuse a warehouse employee for boosting parts from a Boeing warehouse and I wouldn't write a blog post about those "thieving folks of Boeing".
ACORN, obviously, because they are the ones who have actually done illegal things.
ACORN is still around doing what they do. ACVR isn't. If "the fraudulent folks of ACORN" are afraid of going to jail, I'd think they'd be doing something else. Again ACVR is gone and their former head refuses to talk about it. That is very suspicious.
It's sad that anyone would see that as a burden, but whatever.
Well don't cry on my behalf, excuse me at my behest, uh whatever.
Incorrect. That is not the most common meaning, it is not the meaning I used, and it is not the meaning in law.
I disagree with the first, accept the second and defer to you on the third.
And I never said or implied that they did.
You, maybe not. PBJ, Eric, some others in this thread? I think the implication is there.
We all know, as a matter of factual record, that there is a problem of ineligible people voting.
I agree that is a problem.
We also know that the fewer safeguards in place, generally speaking, the more likely people are to try to violate the law. So you put any reasonable safeguards in place that you can. If those safeguards are a significant burden, it is at THAT point that you need to weigh the harm done by the safeguards versus the harm done by not having them (or come up with other ones).
If you're implying let's try photo id and see if it's a problem, I strongly disagree. "No match, no vote" was "tried" in FL and the supposedly unintended consequence was 10 percent of people trying to register were kept off the rolls. Some of those people were ineligible but I think many were perfectly eligible and that's unacceptable. To think Sam Reed tried to implement the same law here.
But what did I say that is a significant burden? Having a free ID and voter registration several weeks before election day is not a significant burden.
I disagree. It was definitely a burden to the elderly Catholic nuns in Indiana even with the provisional ballot. PBJ suggests that people accept the burden but if you want to vote, you're a citizen and you're turned away on the day it counts, that's unacceptable to me. I can see people eventually getting around to "cursin' the gub'mint" over encumbering their rights but many others may be turned off to participating altogether and that is truly "sad".
Requiring proof of citizenship (with means of accomodating those without documentation) COULD be a significant burden, and that is where you weigh it against the alternative.
Agreed.
Still, it is easy to imagine how illegal voters could have accounted for the tiny difference in the 2004 race.
It may be easy to imagine but it certainly wasn't easy to prove as the election contest case surely showed. Despite a huge expenditure of money by the Republicans they could not meet the burden of proof under WA State law. And their case was dismissed with prejudice to boot. Maybe some Republicans shouldn't get carried away by their imaginations?
If you think requiring ID, and offering a free ID to people who don't have one, is an encumberment, then I don't know what else to say, except: that's pretty stupid.
Pudge, tell that to the Catholic nuns. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. I'm sure you can't wait to see what's going to happen this November in Indiana. I know I can't. And yes, even free ID can be a undue burden to an elderly person, a handicapped person, a person who moves around a lot - many other scenarios are possible.
So um, bring your ID, and if you lose it, fill out a provisional ballot. What's the problem? No one in WA would have been turned away in any case. You're confused. Anyone can fill out a provisional ballot. I don't know about FL.
Hmmm. How about a handicapped person? Someone with Parkinson's? Cerebral palsy? There are burdens of time. I had an unpleasant experience time before last I voted. The polling place worker took my id, looked me up and down and then asked me if I lived at the address on the ID. I felt like telling her, no, I live under a bridge. Just cue the german accent: "may I see your papers please". I just received a new voter card from KC and the back of the card says this is "acceptable id". Thank heavens! Since 2004, polling workers have told me the opposite.
There is no problem here.
For most people, yes, you could argue it is no problem. It's that last 10 percent or so that is conveniently not being discussed. You know the percent that makes a difference in close elections? That 10 percent or so that was kept off the rolls in the "no match no vote" debacle in FL?
Of course, in Washington, we have mostly all-mail voting. Gee. I wonder why.
Now we get to the good part.
My brother-in-law's father-in-law is a lifelong Democrat from Mississippi.
Pudge, I believe that is an appeal to authority. On the face I don't see why all mail voting can't be as good as the traditional forms but I could be wrong. You need a better argument. I see no way around a move to all-mail voting given the burden on people's time these days. It'd be nice if the whole country could shut down on election day and everyone could go to the polls but our society doesn't work that way, so I say let's do everything we can through technical means, whatever to make it easy for citizens of all walks of life to participate while maintaining the integrity of the process.
And yes, I believe given the players involved like Hans von Spakovsky and the the like, that the "no match no vote" and photo id requirement pushed by the now defunct ACVR were schemes that on the face were designed to improve the integrity of the process but in practice engineered to help Republicans win elections in battleground states.
For years I've heard lectures from conservatives about the law of unintended consequences that I find are strangely absent in discussions about photo id and "no match no vote" types of so-called "safeguards".
Well you insist on lying about what I said, taking my words out of context.
False.
No pudge I don't excuse people who break the law.
I never said you did.
ACORN is still around doing what they do. ACVR isn't. If "the fraudulent folks of ACORN" are afraid of going to jail, I'd think they'd be doing something else. Again ACVR is gone and their former head refuses to talk about it. That is very suspicious.
Not to me. I need actual evidence of wrongdoing before I become suspicious.
[ID] was definitely a burden to the elderly Catholic nuns in Indiana even with the provisional ballot.
But that is situational. It is not about the ID, it is about the specific laws in place. Note that what I offered was different from the Indiana law: I said ID should only be used for identification purposes, and that if no ID existed, they could prove their identity in another way with a provisional ballot (for example, coming into the auditor's office with alternate proof, or in the case of these nuns, someone from the county could just drive out to meet them, or maybe even do it over the phone if necessary). In Indiana, however, you MUST have the ID. That is specifically different from what I said.
It may be easy to imagine but it certainly wasn't easy to prove as the election contest case surely showed.
Two completely different things. Election laws should not wait until we have evidence of wrongdoing before we try to prevent wrongdoing from happening. That is completely backward.
But yes, there was no proof of significant fraud in the Rossi case, and I predicted, and agreed with, Bridges' decision in that case. We cannot overturn elections because of evidence that the election MIGHT have been thrown. That is asking for chaos. I said before the decision that what Bridges would and should do is to uphold the final result and to chastise the election officials in King County for their terrible mistakes and misconduct. And that is precisely what he did. The only other option was judicial activism, which some feel may have been warranted, and would have been fun to see, but was not a very good legal route.
Despite a huge expenditure of money by the Republicans they could not meet the burden of proof under WA State law. And their case was dismissed with prejudice to boot.
Yawn. "With prejudice" does not mean anything terrible. It simply means the matter is closed, that a new action cannot be brought. Basically, it means in this case that the argument itself was a losing one, not just that the burden of proof was not met. And that's something I said, again, before the decision was handed down.
However, if you really want to look at that case in terms of the whether we should have tougher election laws, realize again that Rossi lost by less than 150 votes and the court found that there were 1,678 illegal votes. This doesn't mean Rossi should have been named governor -- again, I have been clear on that -- but it absolutely shows that the problem of illegal voters is sufficient to influence the election outcome.
Hmmm. How about a handicapped person? Someone with Parkinson's? Cerebral palsy? There are burdens of time.
I have already addressed this, but I just want to re-emphasize: accomodations must be made by the government to deal with these cases. I am not arguing for Indiana's law here.
I had an unpleasant experience time before last I voted. The polling place worker took my id, looked me up and down and then asked me if I lived at the address on the ID. I felt like telling her, no, I live under a bridge. Just cue the german accent: "may I see your papers please".
Oh please. This is a question I have been asked every time I have given my ID to a government official or election worker who didn't know me personally. Every cop, every election worker who didn't know me, every time.
This is a non-argument.
For most people, yes, you could argue it is no problem. It's that last 10 percent or so that is conveniently not being discussed.
It is WAY less than 10 percent. Especially in this state.
That 10 percent or so that was kept off the rolls in the "no match no vote" debacle in FL?
Again you bring up irrelevancies: I have specifically and clearly stated my opposition to any such thing as "no match no vote," as I keep mentioning that provisional ballots not only be made available to *everyone,* but that the government must bear the burden for checking out the information.
Pudge, I believe that is an appeal to authority.
If you mean an "appeal to authority fallacy," you are incorrect. That would only be if I implied that it is correct because he said so. I didn't do that. I presented the argument on its merits, and there is nothing at all wrong with bringing in an authority to present his opinion on the case. This is a common and valid form of argument.
On the face I don't see why all mail voting can't be as good as the traditional forms but I could be wrong.
I gave one excellent reason and you didn't rebut any of them: people can vote illegally for others. This is obvious. Your relative dies, or is not all "there," and you vote for them, illegally.
Another related reason is that you can illegally INFLUENCE someone else's vote, or even SELL your vote, when it is done by mail. I can go to your house and threaten or pay you to vote for McCain, but if you vote in person, I cannot know whether you did. But if you vote by mail, I can stand there while you fill out the ballot, seal it, and drop it in the mailbox.
And then there's the logistics: it is obviously MUCH easier to lose ballots through the mail, and also to illegally intercept them (either coming to you, or going from you).
I see no way around a move to all-mail voting given the burden on people's time these days.
First, that is patently illogical: requiring all-mail is not the same as making mail available to those who request it. Two completely different things. Second, see below.
It'd be nice if the whole country could shut down on election day and everyone could go to the polls but our society doesn't work that way, so I say let's do everything we can through technical means, whatever to make it easy for citizens of all walks of life to participate while maintaining the integrity of the process.
You don't need to shut down on election day. Law requires giving employees sufficient time to vote already. But there's a much simpler solution: have a several-day voting period. Go from Saturday through Tuesday, or somesuch. Or even a week long. And this wouldn't cost much more if you did it smartly: have the polls close to home open only on one or two days, but have "pooled" precinct voting sites on the other days. The point is, there's plenty of ways to go about it.
For years I've heard lectures from conservatives about the law of unintended consequences that I find are strangely absent in discussions about photo id and "no match no vote" types of so-called "safeguards".
None of the unintended consequences you've mentioned apply to what I've said, though.
Posted by: pudge on June 2, 2008 10:24 AMI call BS! Prove it! You will not because you cannot. All you can do is link to left wing sites that, like you, make allegation without proof.
Also, you keep on mentionint hte ACVR as if it is some criminal organization but have yet to piost any evidence anything it did was criminal. Contrast that to ACORN that has a history of illegal activity and fraud prosecutions throughout the country.
Amelia Earhart mysteriously disappeared too. Are you going to starty comparing her to ACORN and their criminal activities as well?
Oh were you questioned about your address to verify your documentation? Were you looked up and down? I've had the same address and voted at the same precinct since 1992. You may not resent being treated like a criminal suspect on the few days each year you are alloted to exercise your franchise but I do.
I have specifically and clearly stated my opposition to any such thing as "no match no vote" as I keep mentioning that provisional ballots not only be made available to *everyone,* but that the government must bear the burden for checking out the information.
Good. But how is showing up on election day and filling out a provisional different from same day registration? And what does the championing of "no match no vote" "safeguards" in WA and FL say about the GOP? It doesn't say very good things to me. You don't seem to like the Indiana photo id law. Again what does such laws say about Republicans? If I were you I'd be mad at Republican leaders for wanting to do such things. Did you give them a piece of your mind in Spokane?
If you mean an "appeal to authority fallacy," you are incorrect. That would only be if I implied that it is correct because he said so.
Yes, I do believe you tried to argue that Democrats are trying commit massive vote fraud through all-mail voting because Ed King said that it is usually used in order to commit fraud. Pretty obnoxious if you ask me. I submit that yes Democrats are trying to win elections but they know if more people participate they will win because their policies and programs are popular. Cheating only works against them. You guys are still going on about stuff done in Chicago 48 years or more ago. I don't think stunts like that help Democrats.
I gave one excellent reason and you didn't rebut any of them: people can vote illegally for others.
No. I have read through this whole thread before your last comment and you did not mention that "people can vote illegally for others" as a possible consequence of all-mail voting. Please point out where you did that.
Your relative dies, or is not all "there," and you vote for them, illegally
It's interesting that this happened in the case of the grieving widower who obeyed his late wife's wish to vote for Dino Rossi in her place. This was an elderly couple who on the face NEEDED to vote by mail. You can certainly argue this will be more common under vote by mail but there's the problem of signature match and that it would be illegal and carry inconvenient penalties if discovered. It may have been signature match that caught the grieving widower but I admit I don't know that for sure.
Then you go on to list some more reasons not to do vote by mail all of which happen or can happen today under the current system.
I don't think any of these bad things would be all that much more common under vote by mail but I'm willing to be convinced. Maybe Ed King has some writings on line?
Again it's very interesting that some Republicans seem hell-bent on nipping voting-by-mail in the bud by pointing out the unintended consequences but neglect to discuss the possible fallout of their proposals like photo id or "no match no vote" unless they're dragged kicking and screaming into court - after harm has been done by the way.
Your proposals for extending the voting period have some merit and I believe are already being done in some places like Florida. That works against instant gratification but that is usually a good thing especially for something as important as elections. But I'm sure there's some downsides as well.
Posted by: YLB on June 2, 2008 12:53 PMSo when you go purchase groceries at the store, hand the clerk a credit card and they "look you up and down and ask for ID" you are against this? You'd prefer they don't check ID when someone tries to cash a check with your name on it or use a credit card with your name on it?
Posted by: pbj on June 2, 2008 01:49 PMOh were you questioned about your address to verify your documentation?
Yes, as I said.
Were you looked up and down?
Yes. That comes after they look at my photo and height/weight, presumably to make sure it matches. I don't see why I should be offended by it.
You may not resent being treated like a criminal suspect on the few days each year you are alloted to exercise your franchise but I do.
Making sure the ID actually matches me is the POINT of the ID. To say this is equivalent to treating me like a criminal is stupid.
Good. But how is showing up on election day and filling out a provisional different from same day registration?
Um. How is it similar? You still have to have been properly registered prior to election day to have your provisional ballot count. I don't understand your point.
And what does the championing of "no match no vote" "safeguards" in WA and FL say about the GOP?
What does the championing of LACK of safeguards say about the Democrats? Your implied answer is that the GOP wants to disenfranchise people to keep them from voting. But I can just as easily say the Democrats want to disenfranchise people by encouraging illegal voting.
Did you give them a piece of your mind in Spokane?
I wasn't there.
I do believe you tried to argue that Democrats are trying commit massive vote fraud through all-mail voting because Ed King said that it is usually used in order to commit fraud
You are incorrect. None of that is even close to the truth. I was using that to show why all-mail voting is bad, NOT saying ANYTHING about the motives of the Democrats. Methinks the liberal doth protest too much!
I submit that yes Democrats are trying to win elections but they know if more people participate they will win because their policies and programs are popular.
Ha. Pull the other one. I trust you actually believe that, but it is not, in fact, true. A majority of citizens are against new and massively expanded social programs, higher taxes, even abortion-on-demand.
No. I have read through this whole thread before your last comment and you did not mention that "people can vote illegally for others" as a possible consequence of all-mail voting. Please point out where you did that.
In @54: "And I firmly believe that this is precisely why some -- not nearly all, but some -- Democrats support [all-mail voting]. They WANT people to be able to commit fraud easily, either by voting as noncitizens, voting for other people who don't want to or can't vote themselves, or various other means."
It's interesting that this happened in the case of the grieving widower who obeyed his late wife's wish to vote for Dino Rossi in her place. This was an elderly couple who on the face NEEDED to vote by mail.
Right, he broke the law, and I don't know them in particular, but yes, there's a reasonable chance they did need to vote by mail. As I've said before, mail voting should be limited to those who need it. And yes, that means that for those who do need it, we have votes that are less secure. We can't have a perfect voting system (yet, anyway), and I never implied we could.
So in this case, yes, he'd still get to vote by mail, and he'd still get to break the law. But there's no reason to make this security problem worse by offering it to people who don't need it.
You can certainly argue this will be more common under vote by mail but there's the problem of signature match and that it would be illegal and carry inconvenient penalties if discovered.
Yes, signature matching. A low-paid seasonal election worker is trained for a few hours by local law enforcement to match signatures. This is not very secure. Stefan posted several examples of faked signatures in 2004, that were obviously faked but never flagged. Some were for relatives, some were from a nursing home.
Then you go on to list some more reasons not to do vote by mail all of which happen or can happen today under the current system.
Incorrect. None of the things I mentioned are nearly as easy to pull off in a system where you have to show up to vote at a well-run polling station.
I don't think any of these bad things would be all that much more common under vote by mail
Again, you are missing the point. You cannot focus on what has or will happen, you have to focus on what is REASONABLY POSSIBLE. Election security laws must be proactive. We figure out what possibilities, liklihoods, probabilities, and compare the pros and cons of dealing with them to come up with the best solutions. So whether these things WILL happen is not the point. The point is whether they are much easier, and whether we are therefore opening ourselves up to a much greater possibility of fraud.
It is MUCH harder to, for example, show up at a polling place and pretend to be someone you are not, than it is do so by mail. It is MUCH harder to successfully threaten/bribe someone into voting a certain way at a polling place than by mail. It is MUCH harder to intercept ballots, before or after they are cast, at a polling place than by mail.
You just handwaved at my points, but handwaving won't do it. You need to try to address them each, because they are not going away. If you need more detail on these points, I can provide it; they seem self-evident and obvious to me, but I've spent a lot of time thinking about them over the years.
Again it's very interesting that some Republicans seem hell-bent on nipping voting-by-mail in the bud by pointing out the unintended consequences but neglect to discuss the possible fallout of their proposals like photo id or "no match no vote" unless they're dragged kicking and screaming into court - after harm has been done by the way.
You are committing a straw man fallacy, since the first part has to do with me, and the second part doesn't.
Your proposals for extending the voting period have some merit and I believe are already being done in some places like Florida. That works against instant gratification ...
That is already lost in WA and OR, since we have all-mail voting across most of both states.
But I'm sure there's some downsides as well.
The only one is cost, but I don't believe it has to be significant.
Posted by: pudge on June 2, 2008 05:14 PM