March 17, 2009
My Vote Fraud Project

From the very beginning of my site I have looked for stories on vote fraud.  I have done that because I believe that, after many decades of decline, vote fraud has been increasing in the last three decades, and because most journalists give the subject little attention.  (Exception:  John Fund.)

And so I have been searching for stories on vote fraud, using fairly simply search routines.   (Typically, I just search Google News on "vote + fraud" — and I always find new examples when I do that search.)  As part of the redesign of my site, I plan to intensify my searches, and to make both the searches, and my cataloging, more systematic.  As I have said before, I would be delighted to get your tips on vote fraud.  If you see a vote fraud story, I would appreciate it greatly if you would send me an email with a link to the story.

I would also be interested in any ideas you might have for cataloging the vote fraud stories I have begun to accumulate.  (Currently, I just have a list of recent posts, on the right side of my site.  It doesn't include many of the earlier posts I did on the subject, and is already awkwardly long.)  I may even end up creating a simple database, but I'll have to think hard about whether that would be worth the effort.

Although I have much more to learn about vote fraud, I do have some tentative conclusions.  Judging by news stories, most vote fraud is committed by Democrats, specifically minority Democrats.  (Anyone familiar with American political history will not be surprised by that pattern.)  Most vote fraud is committed with absentee ballots.  Vote fraud problems tend to be chronic; they occur election after election in the same counties.  If, for instance, you were to ask me where I would expect Republican vote fraud in 2010, I would say, without hesitation, eastern Kentucky.  (For Democratic vote fraud, there would be many obvious places to choose from.)  Most prosecutors are reluctant to investigate vote fraud, because they don't see it as important, and because they know that some will see their investigations as partisan.  (One odd result:  Prosecutors are more likely to get involved in vote fraud cases when the fraud occurred in a primary election.)

Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.

(I am also interested, within limits, in vote fraud cases in other nations.  I think, for instance, the British experience with absentee ballots (which they call postal ballots) is quite instructive.)

Posted by Jim Miller at March 17, 2009 12:29 PM | Email This
Comments
1. You could set up a Google News "Vote Fraud" RSS feed for it, and that would save you some time searching for it every time. You could even incorporate that feed onto your site, as long as you credit Google News as the source.

Posted by: Palouse on March 17, 2009 12:50 PM
2. We are not surprised that almost all the vote fraud is committed by democrats. All you have to do is watch news that does come out about fraud, and it's always in the most heavily democrat counties. And what about ACORN--that radical left Obama-organization is knee-deep in voter registration fraud. I also believe that most democrats don't seem to care about vote fraud because they, too, can see that it's usually committed by democrats and they want the advantage the fraud brings them.

Posted by: Michele on March 17, 2009 02:20 PM
3. If your intent is to get this to be a more visible issue, you should put all this information on a seperate website.

The website should plainly communicate "This site provides documented proof of voter fraud in Seattle and Washington state."

The website should provide a method for visitors to the site to communicate their feelings on this matter to the the correct officials on the state and federal level. (Links to email addresses and websites is good. Form letters, petitions and sign-up forms for email lists and action committees is better.)

No offense to Sound Politics as I love what you do here, but if you post your material on this site, you're burying the big story. This one needs to get more exposure and a dedicated website will allow more bloggers, sites, etc. to link directly to the material faster.

Posted by: johnny on March 17, 2009 02:23 PM
4. Just read in the news today that Acorn will be involved in conducting the census. Not political, right! With their record and involvement, one can count on fraud.

Posted by: Fed Up on March 17, 2009 03:59 PM
5. Don't need to go a lot farther than Sam Reed for the most recent reasons why voter fraud is getting bigger.

Posted by: Hinton on March 17, 2009 04:56 PM
6. #4: What????

Posted by: Michele on March 17, 2009 06:45 PM
7. The Al Frankin mess sounds almost identical to how Queen Christine stole the 2004 Washington Gov election. Dems are developing and refining the tenique...and (unfortunately) it works. Watching national news, I've seen pieces of it implemented in other areas also. Once you've seen the Machine in action, it's fairly easy to spot.

Posted by: Denni on March 17, 2009 08:32 PM
8. Using Google news to find stories on Democratic fraud is like asking the P-I or some local news channel to investigate Democrat voter fraud here in Washington state, specifically King county. Do we really think a Company (like Google) whose employees donated 98% to Dems in the 2004 election, chose to cower like a beaten dog to chinese censorship , and refuses to acknowledge those who've sacrificed the most for this country can ever be trusted to filter the news in any objective fashion? Color me skeptical.

Posted by: Rick D. on March 17, 2009 09:12 PM
9. @7-8: I'm amazed at how far-right-wingdom comes with such a paranoid persecution complex. I suggest tinfoil hats, all around.

More broadly, you have absolutely no proof of large-scale malfeasance in the slightest. Conservative bogeymen, and nothing more.

Posted by: demo kid on March 18, 2009 12:27 AM
10. Your data base won't describe actual voter fraud cases with any clarity or measurable data. Instead what you're describing is a data base on news reporting of voter fraud.

So, you may conclude that voter fraud in news stories is more likely to involve a democrat with some level of accuracy, but you can't conclude from that information that democrat's commit more examples of voter fraud.

Rick D also of course noted that even your methodology for accurately tracking news stories is at best unproven. (I'd describe it as lazy).

But then, I'm thinking that your intention isn't to create facts and data anyway, but to provide a background to support your opinion regardless of reality.

Posted by: BA on March 18, 2009 05:08 AM
11. John Fund had a good piece in the WSJ back in July 2007 about voter fraud nationwide including right here in Washington state in 2004 by Acorn:
Take Washington state, where former U.S. attorney John McKay declined to pursue allegations of voter fraud after that state's hotly contested 2004 governor's race was decided in favor of Democrat Christine Gregoire by 133 votes on a third recount. As the Seattle media widely reported, some "voters" were deceased, others were registered in storage lockers, and still others were ineligible felons. Extra ballots were "found" and declared valid 10 times during the vote count and recount. In some precincts, more votes were cast than voters showed up at the polls.
Mr. McKay insists he left "no stone unturned" in investigating allegations of fraud in the governor's race but found no evidence of a crime. But in an interview with Stefan Sharkansky of SoundPolitics.com in May, Mr. McKay admitted that he "didn't like the way the election was handled" and that it had "smelled really, really bad."His decision not to prosecute was apparently based on the threshold of evidence he insisted be met before he would even deploy FBI agents to investigate: a firsthand account of a conspiracy to alter the outcome of the election. But Mr. McKay is incorrect in saying that he had to find a conspiracy in order to reach the federal threshold for election crimes.

..Of course, some on the left whine it's simply a 'boogeyman' propped up by the right when voter fraud occurs and happens to favor their political persuasion while forgetting they were caterwauling "gore got more" and "Diebold machines" for 8 years under G.W. Bush with far less evidence of systemic malfeasance. Fund sums up the article with pretty much the same attitude I take when it comes to Democratic voter fraud when he states that "[t]he Justice Department may be dysfunctional and poorly led, but the Democratic Congress seems more interested in paralyzing its activities than helping to fix the problem."

I couldn't agree more.

Posted by: Rick D. on March 18, 2009 05:10 AM
12. Updating and restoring the Sound Politics Washington Voter Data Base would be helpful. I find it impossible to search for fraud without it.

Posted by: ROCKETMAN on March 18, 2009 06:12 AM
13. Voter fraud exists everywhere ACORN does....GOOD NEWS!!! ACORN now involved in the 2010 census

Posted by: hellpig on March 18, 2009 07:14 AM
14. Is anyone surprised that ACORN is being recruited to help conduct the census? Why else would Obama want the Census to come under the oversight of Rahm? Methinks that was the plan from the start. And the reasoning will certainly be that it is a money-saving plan, as ACORN will provide volunteers rather than paid census takers. Really, how stupid do they think we are?

Posted by: katomar on March 18, 2009 07:25 AM
15. Ok, first to Acorn, they have been hired by both parties to register voters, McCain even commended them. They hire people and pay the the voter registered (just like Timmy Eyman collecting signatures), Acorn is then required by law to forward all registered to the local State or County Official, in some cases Acorn suspected or knew the registered voters were false names (Mickey Mouse), and they alerted the Officials, and fired the collectors, tell me where is the fraud, not by Acorn but by the collector.

When are you guys going to give up on this Gov. Election, the FBI and your Republican appointed U.S. Attorney said there was no fraud, the U.S. Attorney was fired for not ginning up a case! So get real people and turn off Fox, turn off Linbaugh and read the news.

Posted by: Jay on March 18, 2009 08:12 AM
16. Yes Jay, and that's why federal and state governments have raided ACORN offices in how many states now?

Posted by: johnny on March 18, 2009 08:16 AM
17. Ok, first to Acorn, they have been hired by both parties to register voters, McCain even commended them. They hire people and pay the the voter registered (just like Timmy Eyman collecting signatures), Acorn is then required by law to forward all registered to the local State or County Official, in some cases Acorn suspected or knew the registered voters were false names (Mickey Mouse), and they alerted the Officials, and fired the collectors, tell me where is the fraud, not by Acorn but by the collector.

When are you guys going to give up on this Gov. Election, the FBI and your Republican appointed U.S. Attorney said there was no fraud, the U.S. Attorney was fired for not ginning up a case! So get real people and turn off Fox, turn off Linbaugh and read the news.

Posted by: Jay on March 18, 2009 08:18 AM
18. @15,17: Jay

The poor persecuted republicans on this blog have very limited capacity to actually deal with facts. They like to whine and complain about the Rossi loss (the first time). Even though the republican US Attorney and the republican judge in the hand-picked republican county found no evidence of fraud.

Notice that in the trial, the best evidence the republicans could come up with was republican fraud.

Real election fraud, however, has been documented. In New Hampshire republicans were responsible for deliberately jamming the phone lines of the democratic party on election day to prevent the "get-out-the-vote" drive. The chain of command may have gone all the way to the National party Chair who was in contact with some of the convicted felons:

"In his book, "How to Rig an Election: Confessions of a Republican Operative," Raymond details how he got caught. An hour and a half into the jamming operation he received an e-mail from a Republican official, frantically telling him to shut down the calls. The e-mail read: "Chairman wishes not to proceed with this project ... insists it violates federal law."

Federal agents eventually paid a visit to Raymond's office.

Raymond decided to come clean about his role in the operation and cooperate with investigators.

"I felt like I had an obligation, and not obligation to my country or obligation to the people in New Hampshire, nothing like that," Raymond said. "I had a responsibility to my family."

One of Raymond's alleged co-conspirators, James Tobin, was a top official with the National Republican Senatorial Committee that year. He went on to serve as George W. Bush's Northeastern regional re-election chairman in 2004. Tobin was initially convicted. But he succeeded in having that decision overturned by an appellate court. Just last week, Tobin was again indicted in the case on two counts of making false statements to a federal agent. His lawyer had no comment.

Another co-conspirator and former chairman of New Hampshire's Republican Party, Charles McGee, pleaded guilty to phone harassment in the case and served seven months in prison."
Link: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/22/rigging.election/index.html

Posted by: correctnotright on March 18, 2009 09:21 AM
19. Since when is a tactic such as jamming phone lines "fraud"? Closer to fraud would be Democrat Party operatives calling people whose ballots were rejected due to signature mis-match and, ONLY after making sure they had voted Democrat, helping them correct their signature so their ballot could be counted. The Democrats were so brazen about this in King Co that they bragged about the tactic to a newspaper reporter.
Voting by mail both provokes and permits incremental, unprovable fraud. Kind of like 0bama's unverified credit card campaign donations scheme. And even, in a way, like making sub-prime mortgages available to those unqualified. It is the Democrat way to ensure that we are all included in their corruption.
For example, during the last election, my elderly mother-in-law, frustrated at having to fill in the ovals on her absentee ballot, said to my husband "you fill it out for me, you know how I'd vote." Well, my husband knew better than to fill out her ballot with me standing there glaring at him, so he just encouraged her to keep plugging away. She kept asking him "who should I vote for?" as she went down the ballot. He had to bite his tongue. She also had a great deal of difficulty signing her name. If either I or my husband were just a little less principled we could easily have taken care of her ballot "for her." That is, duh, fraud.
Because I have two young adult children who maintain their permanent address at my home, and both of them abstained from voting in the recent King Co. special election, I could have easily filled out their ballots and forged their signatures in order to stuff the ballot box a bit.
I've heard people calling into radio talk shows bragging that they would "help" their elderly parents to "vote correctly". I've also heard at least two callers self-righteously admit to voting an extra ballot they received or requested due to change of address. They wanted to be sure that they had at least one ballot counted, and if their extra votes got counted in the county or state that they left, what could be wrong about that? They, afterall, were Democrats and the election, however it was conducted, must ensure their victory.
I think that I am personally disenfranchised by even one such casual or deliberate misuse of the ballot. I will not trust our election system until voting by mail is essentially eliminated.

Posted by: Mom on March 18, 2009 10:34 AM
20. "Mom" there is of course a difference between transcribing your mother-in-law's votes and filling in her ballot without her directing the mark-up.

There isn't anything wrong with someone asking "who should I vote for?" - plenty of examples on this blog of folks offering answers to that question.

Voting by mail isn't as secure as voting in person, provided that proof of identity is required at the polling place.

That said, is it therefore acceptable to disenfranchise the infirm, or out-of-state students, or deployed service folks, who can't make it to the polling place in person on voting day?

Seems to me making ANY exception to voting in person only reduces the potential for fraud, but doesn't eliminate it. If we're after perfection, then I think we can't allow for any exception - you're either physically at a polling place or not - end of story.

Posted by: BA on March 18, 2009 02:54 PM
Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?