Last night on Tom Ashbrooke's shows, he had a guy from electionline on talking about the allegations of voting irregularities flying back and forth on this election day, and the philosophical difference between the parties that the types of allegations show.

The Republicans tend to be concerned about voter fraud, such as fictional registrations and people voting multiple times and such things. Democrats tend to be more concerned with voter suppression and intimidation and efforts to make voting difficult or impossible for people who should legally be allowed to cast their ballots. He categorized the difference as between fair elections (R) and free elections (D). Obviously, all good people would like to see both free and fair elections, but when push comes to shove, you have to prioritize.

I see a parallel with law enforcement and criminal justice. There is a philosophical difference between those who feel that it is better for one innocent person to be punished so that 100 criminals can be as well, and others who feel that it is better for 100 criminals to go free rather than to have one innocent person punished.

I for one see the denial of a free man's vote to be the greater crime than additional votes cast fraudulently, as I also feel that punishing an innocent man is much worse than letting a guilty man go free.

How do you feel?

--PunkDavid

What is voter intimidation though? Somebody yelling at you as you go into the polling place? Someone threatening to kill your family if you vote for Kerry? I'm sure these things happen, but call the police if it does, don't run home crying. There are bigger issues, like felons being able to vote or not, people being able to get to voting locations, and other issues that should be discussed, but the intimidation thing just sounds like bull shit to me. I got a dirty look by the person at the voter desk when they saw I was a registered Republican, and I didn't call the local news or Jerry Falwell to come help out. Fraud is a bigger issue, because it can mean potentially 10'000's of votes. Plus the democrats with the computer voting machines have been crying fraud for months now. Plus allowing fraud constitutes both of the points you are making. It lets the criminal go free, and punishes the innocent by cancelling out real voters votes.

I would categorize any tactic designed to keep voter turnout low, especially through actions taken at or near the polling place to fall under the category of intimidation. A flyer found in many black neighborhoods in Milwaukee instructed people that if they have already voted in an election this year, or if they or any member of their family has ever been convicted of any crime no matter how minor, they are not allowed to vote in this election. It also said that if they violate these rules, they could be subject to 10 years in prison and having their children taken from them. I think that would count as voter intimidation, what do you think?

The case in South Dakota involved Republican supporters following Native Americans to and from the polls, and writing down their license plate numbers. That is voter intimidation. Similar stories have been told in Florida and other places where early voting was permitted of people in cars visibly writing down information and even taking photos of people going in and out of polling places. Any of these things could discourage others from voting, especially in minority communities that have been subjected to this sort of intimidation in the past, and even in the present in regards to other things besides voting.

As for fraud, of course I do not condone it, and it certainly can have an effect on an election and should be stopped to whatever exent it can be without stepping on the rights of the innocent. But you're losing perspective if you think that it can affect 10's of thousands of votes in any given state. Think about how many people would have to be involved and how many times they would have to vote each in order to accomplish such scale fraud. The greatest danger is probably registering non-citizens, but it should be the job of the election boards and other official government agencies to prosecute the fraudulent voters, not partisan vigilantes.

--PunkDavid

Both are definetly bad. I had not heard about the Mil. thing, but the Wisconsin thing should be taken care of soon, that was inexcusable, though I don't see how the action would have much effect on Native American turnout. I think the reason for the distinction between the focuses of the two strategies has little to do with any deeper meaning.

The south has a history of voter intimidation, and many people believe that unions and other more liberal organizations have had a bad history of voter fraud. Both tactics are self serving by both sides, because they play on making people believe that the other side is cheating. I don't think this plays towards a greater social ideology of crime and punishment, and is simply nasty tactics to garner support or gain a few more votes. They are both using historically ingrained ideas to illegitimize the possibility that the opponent will win, so in case it is close, they will have a case be to contest the election at a later date. I would rather Kerry won at this point, then see another 2000 which made the country more partisan then ever. I am rooting for Bush, though I voted Libertarian in Texas, but I really hope whoever wins, does it in a comftorable enough fashion that there is no doubt, and these issues will all become secondary.

Since I have a funny feeling this is going to be an issue again next week, I figured we may as well get ahead of teh game and discuss some things now.

What I wanted to bring up was the different ways that Republicans and Democrats commit fraud in elections and what it says in the broader scheme.

Democrats are known, and have been for many, many years, for fraudulently registering voters, having people who are ineligible vote, having people vote multiple times in multiple precints, having people vote for dead people, etc... It's always about "stuffing" ballot boxes, getting more votes cast than there should be legally.

The Republican tactic has leaned more towards keeping people who do have the right to vote from voting. This is done through some illegal, and some legal means. Examples are voter intimidation and disinformation campaigns (often racially themed), increased procedural hurdles such as ID requirements or permanent disenfranchisement of ex-convicts, and there is now the growing spectre of manipulation of voting machines, which has in every suspected case I'm aware favored the Republican candidate.

The general theme seems to be that Democrats want more votes counted, and Republicans want less votes counted. Honestly, I see little difference between tactics that are within the law (or the law itself) and those that are outside the law. The ideal situation would be for every adult person to have one vote, and any tactics by either side that shift from that balance are equally fraudulent as far as I'm concerned.

So one last little thing I want to tie in here is the efforts of the parties to "get out the vote" in the final days of a campaign. As much a part of this as getting out the vote has often been to keep your opponent's voters home. This is accomplished through some legal means, such as campaign ads that simply discourage the opposition and their supporters, to illegal means such as disinformation about how, where, or when to vote, or intimidation that scares voters into thinking that some bad consequence may come to them if they exercise their right to vote.

I've long beleived that negative campaigning favors the Republican candidate. The uglier it gets, the more voters who are turned away from the political process as a whole, the more the GOP benefits. One thing I can say for Republicans is that they are loyal, a lot more so than fickle Democrats. Republicans are also more dedicated and resolute about getting out to vote under any circumstances. The GOP base is smaller than the Democratic base, but it is more solid. So a low voter turnout usually favors the GOP candidates.

I believe they know this (how could they not?), and I believe that especially in teh Karl Rove era, they exploit this. As much as getting the GOP base out, it is a key tactic of the 21st century Republican Party to keep the Democrats' base home, and even more importantly, the independents. Making the American so disgusted with the system that less and less people participate is a distinct benefit to the GOP.

Please discuss any of these points and take the thread where you will. As the actual reports of voter fraud and intimidation start to come in, they can be consolidated here as well.


*EDIT* I just found this old thread on the same subject from two years ago.

http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/vie ... php?t=2370

Like Coultergiest! Stupid Democratic bitch!

i always think about how it would be if everyone over a certain age had to vote or get fined for not voting. but then you get uninformed people voting and more problems. i hate the voting process.

I don't think you'd have any higher percentage of uninformed voters than you do now.

I think in general, mandatory voting would be better for democracy, but the libertarian in me respects a person's right to not vote. I'd need some solid evidence of positive change to support mandatory voting.

What they DEFINITELY should do is move election day to a Saturday or Sunday, or make it a national holiday that no one can be made to work more than a half day.

In Canada your employer has to ensure that your have 5 hours of straight time to vote. In other words in polls are open from 7:00 amuntil 9:00 pm you get off work at 4:00 pm or don't start until noon.

Bars are not open during polling hours either (this may not be the case now but definitely was a law 20 years ago).

Oh, cmon! That was the only comment I made about her little voting snafu.

Australia has mandatory voting, and it still results in a bunch of tools being elected to office every 3-4 years, so no, no positive change.

People can vote blanks if they want though.

http://writ.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/prin ... 61106.html

In a Brief, Unsigned New Opinion, The Supreme Court Sends the Wrong Signal on Voter ID and Voter Fraud
By MICHAEL C. DORF
----
Monday, Nov. 06, 2006

The Supreme Court's first formal opinion of the current Term received little notice, but could signal a seismic--and ill-advised--shift in the constitutional law governing elections. In a brief unsigned opinion in Purcell v. Gonzalez, the Justices unanimously reversed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had ordered Arizona state officials not to enforce new state-mandated identification requirements for voter registration and voting.

Although couched in the technical language of civil procedure, the decision is far more important for what it says about the right to vote. Crediting almost wholly speculative concerns about voter fraud, while discounting the nearly certain disenfranchisement of thousands of eligible voters, the ruling stands on its head a role the Supreme Court has admirably played for over four decades--guarantor of the democratic process.



Arizona's Proposition 200 and the Ill-Founded Fear of Individual Voter Fraud

In 2004, Arizona voters approved Proposition 200, which requires that persons registering to vote present proof of citizenship, and that voters present proof of identification when voting. The measure was adopted in response to fears that illegal immigrants were voting and obtaining government benefits.

The proponents of Proposition 200 argued that some form of official identification is required for participation in a wide range of activities, including cashing checks, enrolling children in Little League, and even renting videos. Isn't fraud prevention in voting, they asked, at least as important as fraud prevention in these other contexts?

The answer would surely be yes, if there were any evidence of substantial fraudulent voting. Yet there is scant such evidence--and for good reason: If you want to steal an election, there are much more effective means of doing so than sending individual bogus voters to the polls.

From the individual's perspective, waiting in line on Election Day to cast one improper vote, or even a dozen, has an infinitesimal chance of actually influencing the outcome of an election. It has long been recognized that the only rational reason to vote is a sense of civic duty, rather than the incredibly slim hope of casting the decisive ballot. How many people would vote illegally--and thereby risk imprisonment--out of a sense of civic duty alone?

To be sure, a well-organized campaign might try to induce thousands of ineligible people to cast ballots under false pretenses, perhaps with cash payments. But the number of people who would have to be bribed in this way to steal an election is so large that the plot could not be kept secret--and once revealed, it would be foiled.

The much more effective way to steal an election is to change the tally after the individual votes have been cast--either by adding ballots en masse (ballot box "stuffing"), or by reporting a false count. Concerns about the security of the new electronic voting machines in many states may or may not be justified in this election cycle, but they correctly target what has traditionally been the point in the process at which the most mischief can be accomplished.

The Harm That Identification Requirements Do

Even if there is no pressing need for identification requirements, as opposed to other measures to combat election fraud, one still might think that they are a good idea: Why not ensure that everyone who casts a ballot is in fact doing so lawfully?

The answer to this question was put succinctly in the statement of the League of Women Voters, which opposed Proposition 200 when it was put before the Arizona voters in 2004. After noting that, in ten years, there had been only ten reported cases of individual voter fraud in Arizona's two largest counties, the League noted that requiring "IDs at polling places will slow down the voting process, creating longer lines and reducing voter turnout as word of lengthy waits spreads. It will mean more provisional ballots, driving up the cost of elections and delaying the counting process, holding up election results."

And these voter suppression effects will occur even on the assumption that everyone who is eligible to vote has proper identification. Yet, as the Brennan Center notes, that assumption is not true: In fact, roughly ten percent of eligible citizens currently lack the identification required by laws like Arizona's, and will not obtain that identification to satisfy such laws. For some minority groups, the percentage is higher still.

Thus, the mere handful of hypothetical cases of individual voter fraud that Arizona's Proposition 200 prevents will come with the cost of preventing many thousands of eligible voters from casting ballots.

What the Supreme Court Said: The Ninth Circuit Applied the Wrong Standard of Review

Accordingly, Arizona residents, Indian tribes and community organizations sued to enjoin the enforcement of Proposition 200's identification requirements. They argued that it would violate their fundamental right to vote.

The district court denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction, but the Ninth Circuit reversed that decision. However, state officials then sought and obtained an emergency ruling from the Supreme Court, which lifted the injunction. Hence, when Arizonans go to the polls tomorrow, Proposition 200 will be in force.

Why did the Supreme Court side with the state officials? In a technical sense, it didn't.

A district court's decision to deny a preliminary injunction can only be reversed by an appeals court if that decision constitutes an "abuse of discretion" or rests on a "clearly erroneous" understanding of the facts. These standards of review give considerable deference to the district court.

According to the Supreme Court, in substituting its own judgment for that of the district court--without providing any explanation for doing so--the Ninth Circuit did not apply the correct standard of review. And given the relatively undeveloped factual record, the Justices said they could not, themselves, find the sort of clear error in the district court's ruling that would warrant enjoining enforcement of Proposition 200.

In its brief opinion, the Supreme Court explained that it was not expressing a view on the ultimate merits of the case. Further proceedings could well result in a finding that Proposition 200 does violate the plaintiffs' constitutional rights, in which case it would be appropriate to enjoin its application in future elections.

Yet even with these important caveats, the Supreme Court's ruling is unsettling for several reasons.

A Constitutional Right to Avoid Feeling Disenfranchised?

The Court explained that while plaintiffs have a constitutional right to vote, the state has a compelling interest in the integrity of its election process. The opinion characterized the state interest in the following terms: "Voter fraud drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust of our government. Voters who fear their legitimate votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised."

Those statements are troubling in at least three respects. First, in an opinion that takes the Ninth Circuit to task for failing to give adequate deference to the district court's evaluation of the factual record, the Supreme Court itself appears to credit the state's claims of voter fraud without any reference to the evidence presented to the district court.

Second, when the Supreme Court asserts that fears of voter fraud will lead other voters to feel disenfranchised, it once again does so without citing any supporting evidence from the record.

Third, the Supreme Court suggests that there is a compelling state interest in preventing feelings of disenfranchisement--even if such feelings are based on unrealistic fears, and even if they are unaccompanied by actual disenfranchisement. And worse, it claims that this interest in preventing feelings of disenfranchisement rises to a level sufficient to override the voting rights claims of people who will actually be disenfranchised by the measures taken in the name of avoiding such feelings.

Indeed, it is possible to read the Court's opinion as containing a fourth, and even more troubling, implication--namely, that these feelings of disenfranchisement on the part of voters worried about fraud are themselves infringements of the right to vote.

The basis for this implication is the Court's choice--just after it espouses its theory that feelings of disenfranchisement are a serious matter--to quote earlier cases involving actual disenfranchisement. The Court then remarks, "[T]he right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen's vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise."

What if the Court ultimately runs with the position its opinion can be read to imply--the position that hypothetical feelings of disenfranchisement based on hypothetical worries about voter fraud somehow count as actual disenfranchisement? Then, in a contest between voters challenging an identification requirement and the state, the Supreme Court, or lower courts following its logic, may well find constitutional interests on both sides, and uphold the challenged requirements.

This Election, and Subsequent Ones: Why Hasn't There Been Much Progress?

In the wake of the 2000 Presidential election, officials at every level of government vowed to "fix" our electoral system. Yet the ensuing six years have not brought much progress. Why not?

The short answer is that Republicans and Democrats have very different ideas about what was, and is, wrong with our system of elections. Democrats thought the 2000 election showed the importance of making it easy for every eligible voter to cast a ballot and to have that ballot counted. Republicans, by contrast, tended to view the 2000 Florida recount as a Democratic effort to change the rules after the game was underway, and have accordingly sought stricter rules--like Arizona's Proposition 200.

Longstanding Supreme Court precedent pretty clearly favors the Democratic view (which sometimes benefits Republicans too). Since the early 1960s, the Court has afforded its highest level of protection to the right to vote--upholding government regulations that simply seek to structure the electoral process in an orderly way, but striking down those laws and practices that dilute individuals' or communities' votes.

Bush v. Gore nominally adhered to that pattern, but with a 180-degree twist. The Supreme Court halted the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court in the name of the individual right to vote, thus invoking count-every-vote-equally precedents. But, ironically, it did so in a case in which the effect of the ruling was to stop counting votes.

Purcell makes the same move--this time, unanimously. In characterizing the state interest in preventing fraud as an individual interest in avoiding feelings of disenfranchisement, the Court invokes the count-every-vote-equally rhetoric of the 1960s but once again does so in the service of a rule of law, here Arizona's Proposition 200, that will almost surely prevent the counting of many more lawful votes than unlawful ones. This is not progress.

Widespread Calls, Allegedly from "Webb Volunteers," Telling Voters that their Polling Location has Changed.

A couple of examples:

a. Norman Cox has been registered to vote in the same location in Arlington since 1972. Someone from a 406 number (in Montana) called to tell him that his polling place has changed. [Note: The Webb Campaign is NOT making any such phone calls.] Cox said he believed that he was being mislead and the caller hung up.

b. Peter Baumann in Cape Charles, VA (North Hampton) got a similar call from a "Webb volunteer" saying his polling location had changed. He said: No, I'm a poll worker and I know where I vote. The girl--who was calling from California--hung up.

The Secretary of the State Board of Elections Jean Jensen has logged dozens of similar calls, finding heavy trends in Accomack County (middle peninsula) and Essex County (outer peninsula) [as reported by the counties' registrars].

3) Fliers in Buckingham County Say "SKIP THIS ELECTION" (paid for by the RNC) have caused many in the African American community to call the Board of Elections to see if the election is still on. The full tag line says: "SKIP THIS ELECTION... (and then in smaller print): Don't Let the Tax and Spend Liberals Win."

4) Voter Machine Problems.

a. On many ballots in heavily Democratic neighborhoods, Jim's name is cut off. The ballots say: "James H. (Jim)" with no Webb.

b. New reports that ballots in Essex County have Jim's name split on 2 pages. The "James H (Jim)" on one page, "Webb" on the next.

c. Reports of voting machines in Isle of White that do not provide a clear image of the ballot, making voting a challenge

My dad is 49, he never registered to vote. Something about not wanting to get drafted when he was younger, then a whole lot of couldn't care less ever since.

there was a little old lady near my voting location this morning giving out cups of cocoa. she intimidated me. i mean, is that REPUBLICAN cocoa, ma'am?

If your dad is 49, then he turned 18 in 1975, and the draft was over by then, I think. The war was over anyway, and the draft was about to be ended.

You may want to check into this story...

Has there even been a draft since he's been of age?

I heard this has just paper ballots in Fairfax county only, not voting machines.

I had to fill mine out on a scantron.