Is there “significant” voter fraud?
[NOTE: This post is an expanded version of a comment of mine on a thread yesterday about voter ID and fraud.]
The left likes to argue that there’s no significant amount of voter fraud, so there’s no need for voter ID laws and those who support them are inherently racist.
But as far as I’m concerned, even one case of voter fraud is an abomination. And voter ID is a very reasonable way to deal with the phenomenon, for all the reasons that common sense would dictate.
But seeing that this is the left we’re talking about, I’m not even sure they believe their own arguments about the lack of voter fraud (even if they’re not the ones perpetrating the fraud, which we could—and no doubt will—argue about in the comments section); my guess is that the argument about insignificant voter fraud just appeals to them strategically. But it’s also illogical on its face, a sort of “what we see is all there is” assertion that makes no sense. It reminds me of people who say, “I always can tell when a guy’s wearing a hairpiece.” Maybe yes and maybe no, but how would they know? The really good, undetectable hairpieces would be like, really good and undetectable, wouldn’t they? The same with voter fraud.
However, the number of cases of voter fraud that have been found and prosecuted are certainly more than one or two. And there’s little question that those cases are certainly not anywhere near 100% of the ones that have occurred; a 100% prosecution rate would make them unique in the annals of crime.
It’s not hard to come up with links to documented voter fraud cases, such as this, this, this, and this. Not all of them are of the type that would have been prevented by voter ID laws, but many of them are.
Here’s another, and here’s one of my personal favorites:
The 2004 Washington State gubernatorial election was decided by 133 votes while 1,678 illegal votes, mostly by felons, were cast. The election was upheld because there was no accurate way to determine which candidate was the recipient of the illegal votes.
This reasoning ought to make sense to anyone not blinded by partisanship and demagoguery [emphasis mine]:
But the push for voter ID laws is not all about preventing fraud, said Pennsylvania state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe, who sponsored his state’s voter ID law.
“The driving factor is common sense,” Metcalfe told ABC News. “It only makes sense that when you show up to vote, to exercise that very important right and responsibility, that you prove you are who you claim.”
Metcalfe said the number of voter fraud cases that are prosecuted are only a sliver of the fraud taking place because there is no system in place to detect fraud. His voter ID law aims to do just that.
Voter fraud is hard to prove in the absence of ID laws, and adds to the paucity of cases. So the argument against voter ID laws is a form of circular reasoning. Lack of ID laws and difficulty of conviction makes voter fraud hard to prove, and the relatively low number of convictions is then used by people to argue against implementing voter ID laws. The following quote refers to Wisconsin, but it or something similar is true in many other states as well:
Because prosecution of election fraud falls on the shoulders of county district attorneys already strapped for resources, Bernier said such cases are rarely investigated, and hardly ever prosecuted. D.A.’s also must consider the high threshold of proving election fraud, weighing against the demands of other higher profile cases.
There are cases of voter fraud such as this one, where over a hundred people were convicted but the actual number of violations was thought to be in the thousands (there was a book written about that fraud and others perpetrated in the 2008 election of Al Franken and probably contributing to his close win, which was certainly “significant” since it was instrumental in giving the Democrats a majority in the Senate).
Of course, no matter how many cases one could come up with, the left won’t be considering those frauds “significant” enough—“significant” no doubt being defined as more than whatever the evidence might show.
Then there’s this, about how easy it is (and how likely it is) that illegal aliens vote in rather large numbers in certain states, and how hard it is to prove.
As for whether voter ID laws actually act to suppress black votes, see this for some evidence that they do not.
Let’s see, you need photo ID to open a bank account, withdraw or deposit money, buy smokes or wine (sometimes), buy a firearm, rent a car, and I’m sure a million other things that I can’t recall right now. It’s impossible to live a normal life without ID (much to my regret). So what’s the big deal with voting? Simply that voter IDs cramp the corrupt style of certain of our political institutions.
Oh, and that Ohio woman who was sentenced to five years for voter fraud was out after eight months. Shall we play name-the-political-party?
Thanks to Motor Voter laws, any state that has a policy of issuing drivers licenses to illegals is also enabling them to vote. Which is a feature, not a bug.
Add to that that some “blue” states have also taken to disenfranchising overseas servicemen by intentionally sending the ballots late.
And the ID can’t be a college ID card. I live near the border between two states, and half the people I know could have voted in two states – one using a driver’s license and the other a college ID.
I don’t think any of your links lead to this: ACORN whistleblower Anita Moncrief has detailed the ways in which ACORN has committed voter fraud.
Yes, the same ACORN that still manages to get federal funding and is an authorized Obamacare Navigator organization (so they have access to personal ID info).
There was a MD state rep or senator who had a house in Florida. She admitted that she voted in both places. I bet a lot of people with 2 residences do this.
So requiring an ID is a poll tax? Did anybody ever have the chance to talk with a pathological liar? The kind of person who could stare calmly into your eyes and tell you something was one way when you’d just witnessed the opposite? It’s infuriating, not because they’re liars. Of course they’re liars, it’s infuriating because they’re grinning as they lie. They know it’s a like, you know it’s a lie, they know you know it’s a like and everybody listening knows it’s a lie.
And they still roll their head around and smirk playing to the audience. “Voter fraud? Maybe it’s you committing the fraud, trying to force people to prove they’re who they say they are. Maybe it’s YOU trying to pull a fast one.
Pull it back and plug in a different crime. What do you mean I pickpocketed you? You pickpocketed me you stole my wallet and then put this stupid wallet in its place. Hnnn Right. Now what you got to say?
I guess we Republicans are just so stupid aren’t we? Who are we going to believe? Al Sharpton or our lying eyes?
The left has two motivations that make them oppose voter ID. 1.) Its a way to play the race card over and over again, and 2.) ballot box fraud enables them to win elections they would otherwise lose. Fraud is a much smoother process than arguing over pregnant, dented, and hanging chads, or creating uncounted ballots to be discovered at the last moment.
I am curious what you thought of voter ID before you switched. And, no, it wouldn’t surprise me, at all, if you agreed with voter ID then, if you didn’t merely dismiss the notion as overblown. You actually, seem to have been, at times, at least a thinking liberal. If you didn’t wash it away with the ‘scale’ notion, how did you blend it in?
No, not being fussy, or pointing fingers. I used to be far more liberal, just a lot longer ago. In my case, for example, I just didn’t see the reasons, in my version of liberalism, for the expense and pageantry of elections. Even then I considered them rigged, just not completely to one side or the other. If I still do consider that last, something I am just coming back to, albeit. Only this time I don’t agree with the notion.
Just… curious.
Doom:
I don’t remember following any discussions of voter ID before my change, so I didn’t really have an opinion. But I can say with almost a certainty that my position on it, had I followed it, would have been the same as now.
Even today, a great many Democrats would agree. Republicans and Independents are more strongly in favor, but even Democrats are evenly split.
Voter fraud that has been exposed is but the tip of the iceberg. It is not however how much voter fraud but where it is occurring that is most significant. A relatively few votes in key districts are all that is needed to ‘win’ elections.
The temptation for the leftist ideologue to win through ‘justified theft’ is irresistible, when ethical and moral objections have been rationalized away with the means being justified by the end.
What we are seeing in this country is the inevitable outplay of freedom. Free to choose, some will choose good and some will choose evil. Choosing the good often involves personal sacrifice, whereas choosing evil is always self-aggrandizing.
As a free society’s moral and ethical guidelines crumble, in our case through the left’s Gramscian “March through the Institutions”, more and more choose self-aggrandizement over self-sacrifice.
The left is increasingly about willful blindness to hypocritical self-aggrandizement while the right’s base is engaged in a rebellion against it’s leadership’s hypocrisy. It’s hard to envision a path that doesn’t lead to physical conflict between America’s left and right. And it will be the left that shall initiate it.
That is because all systems that at base are about control, sooner or later compel a choice; liberty, life on one’s knees or death.
Ultimately, voter fraud is about far more than ‘cheating on an exam’. No democratic republic can long survive unaddressed voter disenfranchisement.
Jack: “So requiring an ID is a poll tax?”
An emergent feature in Left activism is considerations of balancing legitimate interests, mitigating factors, and the reasonable person standard have been preempted by abstracted ideas of social justice and rights that are used to justify the codification of maximal client (and advocate) benefits.
Sandra Fluke’s advocacy for subsidized birth control is one example.
Another example is the campaign to change admissions at NYC’s elite public exam schools in order to mandate a higher percentage of black and Latino students. (Note: Access to a ‘floor’ standard of regular or special education is a right; access to a higher ‘gifted’ standard of specialized education is not normally a right.) Similar to voter ID proposals, every reasonable effort has been made to make the SHSAT exam accessible while upholding the integrity of the admission standard, yet despite that the NAACP LDF has stipulated the SHSAT is race-neutral, the Left argues the SHSAT must go due to the ipso facto racism of the disparate test results. Left activists are aggressively campaigning to kill the Hecht-Calandra NYS law protecting the SHSAT in court or the state legislature , and right now, it looks like they’ll succeed.
With respect to the original question I would respond that one instance of exposed voter fraud is significant.
That is enough to cast doubt, and when you undermine the legitimacy of elections you have stepped onto a very slippery slope.
I am sure that Neo’s readers could annotate numerous deleterious effects, but to name just one; it validates the cynics who refuse to participate in democracy’s basic responsibility and privilege. “Why should I, it is corrupt?”, they will say.
This thread has been necroed I see. Resurrected from undeadness.
“Sandra Fluke’s advocacy for subsidized birth control is one example.”
It was not simply a matter of subsidized, it was a matter of the muzzle of the federal gun pointed at those who view birth control as against their beliefs. Personally, I support the legalization of birth control measures (short of abortion), but I will never support the idea that the state has the power to impose its will upon those who have a sincere disagreement with being forced to eat soupe du jour.
I lived in CT for 25 years, from 74-99. During most of that period, there was a requirement for a photo ID to vote. I am someone who keeps up with political news and was very much involved in local and State politics. During that entire period I NEVER heard or read about any concerns whatsoever. People got their IDs; they voted; provisions were in place to tke care of any contingencies.
The Left wants the power to enslave humanity. Thus slaves don’t have money, all of it belongs to the Master. And the Master’s favorite concubine then gets to determine which slaves can get the benefits of “free” birth control in their breeding programs.
In Washington State, all voting is now done by mail. You receive your ballot by mail, and send it back via the USPS. You have to sign and swear your signature is yours.
Will this help prevent voter fraud? Maybe. Maybe not.
Susan, are you taking any bets?
All of the years in the USN, when we voted absentee, the command “voting Officer” received the ballots that you requested. You completed your ballot in his presence, then put you ballot in an inner envelope and signed it. He then put it in an outer envelope, attested that all had been done in accordance with established protocols, signed the official envelope and mailed it.
Obviously, great emphasis was put on making the ballot secret, and ensuring that it was completed by the person authorized to vote. No one gave it a second thought.
Except those military absentee votes mysteriously vanished in Florida.
Geoffrey Britain: “The left is increasingly about willful blindness to hypocritical self-aggrandizement while the right’s base is engaged in a rebellion against it’s leadership’s hypocrisy. It’s hard to envision a path that doesn’t lead to physical conflict between America’s left and right. And it will be the left that shall initiate it.”
The solution to all of the above is a Right activist social movement, which can:
One, displace the Left activist social movement that won’t otherwise be persuaded to meekly hand over the power they’ve won fairly through activist conquest.
(That the Left won against an opponent who effectively forfeited doesn’t make their victory less fair.)
Two, bypass the inadequate legacy GOP leadership with a new center of gravity for the Right capable of competing in the activist game against the Left. A new Right activist social movement can harvest the GOP components that work and discard the obsolete, corrupted remainder.
Three, obviate the need to resort to – let’s call it – ‘physical’ politics by other means, by defeating the Left in the activist game.
Now, if matters escalate to a ‘physical’ stage against a Left that’s in control of the US government and all the other critical social nodes, then the Right will need at least the networked organization, logistical infrastructure, and capabilities of a Right activist movement for any chance of a viable insurgency .
Many sovereign militia types harbor the Red-Dawn fantasy that they can join together to beat US military and police forces in a guerilla war. They’re wrong.
Historically, despite needing to relearn the lessons the hard way every time, the US military has proven consistently to be master counter-insurgents in far more difficult conditions than their native soil. We’ve only been defeated by Left propaganda and international political restrictions, neither of which will favor a Right insurgency at home.
If the Right attempts a ‘physical’ insurgency in the US, a Left-controlled USG counter-insurgency would be no holds barred, combining the US Military’s expert counter-insurgency with the Left’s expert activist capabilities, including propaganda, and sociopathic ruthlessness. I doubt Mexico and Canada would help Left-stigmatized Right insurgents with off-limits AfPak or Vietnam-bordering type refuges.
Though some of our competitors like Russia might provide aid, perhaps even propaganda cover, to a Right insurgency in order to maximize the destructiveness to the US of the conflict.
For a Right insurgency to have any slim chance against a Left-USG alliance, they would need to convert from a robust Right activist movement with mature organization, logistical infrastructure, and activist capabilities, including propaganda.
Most likely, a Right insurgency would be crushed to the Left-induced applause of the world.
The better option for the Right is to win the activist game before matters reach a ‘physical’ head.
Motor Voter is the heart of voter fraud. It was staring Scalia in the face and he missed it.
According to Attorney General Holder, you shouldn’t have to present ID to vote in Texas- but you need to present ID to see him speak in Texas. From 2012:NAACP Requires Photo I.D. to See Holder Speak in State Being Sued Over Voter ID.
Reminds me of the old “Do as I say, not as I do.”
And then there’s the infamous case of “Box 13”:
Y’all have to see this: Robert Caro, author of a massive biography of Lyndon Baines Johnson, recounts how the old scoundrel STOLE his first election to the Senate from Texas.
Caro said he’d never even heard of such a massive fraud. One of the perpetrators confessed to it after LBJ and the other miscreants were dead.
Read it and be amazed: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/11/us/how-johnson-won-election-he-d-lost.html
If it weren’t for this massive, blatant thievery, think how different the course of history would have been!!
Here’s an excerpt:
“Mr. Caro not only reviewed thousands of pages of court records, but also interviewed Mr. Salas, the election judge of Precinct 13 in Jim Wells County. Under Mr. Salas’s supervision, Mr. Caro said, Johnson received the votes of the dead, the halt, the missing and those who were unaware that an election was going on.
On primary night, a Saturday, the first tallies of the Democratic primary showed Johnson trailing his opponent by 20,000 votes. Still unreported, however, were the votes from San Antonio, where Stevenson had defeated Johnson 2 to 1 in the first primary. When those votes finally came in, Johnson had won a stunning victory, carrying San Antonio by 10,000 votes.
Later that evening, the rural counties in the Rio Grande Valley further eroded the Stevenson lead, which was reduced to 854 votes.
A Precinct Is ‘Discovered’
The next day, county officials ”discovered” that the returns from one precinct had not yet been counted, Mr. Caro said, and those votes went overwhelmingly to Johnson. On Monday, there were more new returns from the Rio Grande Valley.
But on Tuesday, the state’s Election Bureau announced that complete returns had given Stevenson a 349-vote victory, with 40 votes still uncounted.
There were no significant changes Wednesday, and Stevenson still led on Thursday. On Friday, the Rio Grande Valley precincts made ”corrections” in their election returns, cutting Stevenson’s lead to 157.
Also on Friday, Jim Wells County telephoned in its amended return, ”and suddenly, with virtually all the counting in the election over, Coke Stevenson was no longer ahead,” Mr. Caro said. Johnson had won by 87 votes.
Challenge and Affirmation
Mr. Caro confirmed the charges made at the time by Stevenson supporters that county officials had cast the votes of absent voters and had changed the numbers on the tallies. For example, he said, Jim Wells County provided an extra 200 votes for Johnson merely by changing the 7 in ”765” to a 9.
Johnson’s victory was upheld by a 29-to-28 vote of the Texas Democratic Party’s executive committee, and he went on to defeat Jack Porter, the Republican candidate, in the general election. And although a Federal District Court had ordered his name off the ballot pending an investigation, the order was voided by Associate Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on a petition from Abe Fortas, who was Johnson’s chief lawyer.”
Much of the opposition to voter id is based on preventing any investigation of voter fraud or just plain poor practice. One reason the left claims there is so little voter fraud is because no one ever looks for it. In election boards where voter rolls are carefully vetted it never fails that some dead people have voted. This is part of the threat of True the Vote. Some election boards do a really good job of maintaining voter registration lists. Many others purposely put off or avoid purging the rolls and keep many names on the rolls that should long since have been purged — and can suddenly appear and vote if needed. Making it difficult and expensive to investigate encouraged cheating.
Beverly, I read somewhere that JFK infuriated LBJ by referring to him as “Landslide Johnson.” I have also read that LBJ had lost a previous Senate primary by ballot box stuffing. He decided that if he had to do that to win, he would do so.
The most famous example of voter fraud is Mayor Daley carrying the state of Illinois for JFK in 1960. I couldn’t find the source, but IIRC Hizzonah Da Mayah told JFK that he had carried Illinois “with a little help from some friends.”
AlBea (re previously uncontroversial voter ID requirements in Connecticut): Still more proof that voter ID is just another beard for the Dems and left like “racism” and “war on women” to dishonestly demonize their opponents.
Gringo, 12:02 am — “I read somewhere that JFK infuriated LBJ by referring to him as ‘Landslide Johnson.'”
It was “Landslide Lyndon”. You get the alliteration that way.
Pingback:Corrupt Democrat Machine Calls Voter ID “Racist” | PA Pundits - International
WHAT’O’WHAT is it about valid photo-ID (Ya know like one needs to buy booze or board an airplane) that soooooooooooooooo offends the thugocracy of the Left??