When Democrats change the rules under the cover of darkness
By Soren Dayton Posted in Congress — Comments (13) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Last week, Erick wrote about there being "something afoot in Mordor." (For more read this by Robert Stacy McCain at the Washington Times) The Democrats are developing an agenda. Not to govern, but to "entrench their power." Some of the agenda we know:
They want the "Employee Free Choice Act" to start growing unions again by denying free choice to employees. They want "clean election laws" to force taxpayers to fund Democratic candidates for office. ...
Some, however, is new. Today at 2pm the Elections Subcommittee will hold a hearing on a bill by Rep. Susan Davis (D-CA) to expand "vote by mail" or "no excuse absentee" balloting.
You probably haven't heard about the hearing. The Democrats aren't telling people. It wasn't announced in The Hill or Roll Call, which is the standard procedure. The Democrats don't want you to know what they are doing.
Why? Because the Democrats are trying to change our election laws under the cover of darkness to rig the system in their favor.
Read on.
The Democrats are refusing to allow witnesses on all sides of the issue. On October 10, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), the ranking member of the Subcommittee, asked for three witnesses, the same number the Democrats had. The Democrats will only allow one witness.
When politicians don't want witnesses or press, you should be afraid. Very afraid. Why? Because unlimited vote-by-mail is a bad idea. There are a lot of reasons that the Democrats don't want you to hear about. (remember, only one witness) But I am going to focus on fraud.
The problems are simple. Who don't know who filled out the ballot. You don't know who requested it. You don't know how the voter got it, or even if they got it. Etc.
It is uncontroversial that unlimited vote-by-mail can lead to fraud. Even liberals, like those at TPM, say that:
Ohio has actually expanded a law that makes it easier to engage in voter fraud in the one area we know it exists – absentee balloting.
Instances of absentee fraud arise most often in local, county or community elections, taking one of the following four forms: (1) forging signatures; (2) coercing or influencing a vote; (3) vote buying; and (4) misappropriating absentee ballots.
That's theory. How about practice. Like in Washington State in 2004? Or South Dakota in 2002? Or Detroit in 2005?
Or my favorite. The 2003 Democrat primary in East Chicago, IN. The Supreme Court of Indiana eventually threw out the results of the election. After the election was thrown out, the Attorney General of Indiana brought federal RICO -- racketeering -- charges against numerous elected and appointed officials of the city and the local Democratic Party. Why? Here's what the judge found:
(a) Pastrick supporters engaged in a pattern of inducing ill-informed voters, the infirm, the poor, and those with limited skill in the English language to engage in absentee voting;
(b) Pastrick supporters in numerous instances provided compensation and/or created the expectation of compensation to induce voters to cast their ballot via the absentee process. Those actions primarily - but not exclusively - involved the payment of money to voters to participate in pro-Pastrick rallies outside the polls on Election Day. The court found that at least thirty-nine separate individuals received cash payments in exchange for casting absentee votes;
(c) Pastrick supporters illegally assisted absentee voters in completing their ballots;
(d) Pastrick supporters used addresses of vacant lots or former residences of voters as addresses on applications for absentee ballots;
(e) On May 6, 2003, the day of the East Chicago mayoral primary, Pastrick supporters illegally possessed unmarked absentee ballots and delivered those ballots to absentee voters;
(f) On the day of the May 6, 2003, East Chicago mayoral primary Pastrick supporters illegally possessed completed and signed absentee ballots;
(g) Pastrick supporters routinely completed substantive portions of absentee ballot applications to which applicants simply affixed their signatures;
(h) In filling out the substantive portions of such absentee ballot applications, Pastrick supporters routinely used false representations - usually that the applicant expected to be absent from Lake County on May 6, 2003 - to justify the voter's request for an absentee ballot;
Got enough?
Under the cover of darkness, the Democrats are trying to change our election laws... So they can hold elections under the cover of darkness.
from the sort of parliamentary skullduggery we were treated to during 6 years of one party rule how, exactly?
I mean other than now it's the Dems doing it of course.
=========
About the Author
Lord Vegas is a true American. some would call him a Mutt, but he prefers the term Mixed Breed. He eats Trolls for breakfast or gives them to Franz to bury in the backyard!
So, what other moral stances will you abandon once it's convenient for you to do so?
Moe
PS: No, actually we can discuss our alleged moral failings later. Right now your confessed ones are more interesting. Tell me, is it an ideological thing with you, or will mere money suffice?
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
So we're not actually disagreeing that parliamentary skullduggery goes on on both sides?
Exactly right.
What's changed is the forces of Bu-Bu-Bu-Clinton now have to lie in the same slop pile after having all the cards for longer than at any time since the 1940's...
...are engaging in skullduggery. I know that you want to start from the stance that they're just as bad as the Republicans, but alas! - you actually can't just make us accept your core assumptions as given.
But, please, again: what other moral stances of yours are only valid when your Party's not in power? Next post, please.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
So who are you copying and pasting from that told you Republicans controlled the Senate for six years there?
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
You are correct of course. My bad.
That Democratic Senate (by 1 seat) lasted from 2001 to 2002.
After that, it was all Republican.
You might be able to figure out who the moderators are, then - and when it's a good idea to do what you're told.
Ta.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
...where you complained (Daily Kos is good, although B. Fred could use the love) about us. We collect 'em.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
is almost as much fun as the panels in the Batman comic books where you see him beginning to appear right behind the unsuspecting thug mugging the little old lady, but...
Well, perhaps there should be some sort of visual warning when you flip over to official moderator mode? Might be even more amusing after they ignore the obvious moderator marker.
I've lived in a state where you could vote by mail and it was great. You didn't have to waste hours coming home from work on a Tuesday to vote. You could carefully read the ballot and think about it before voting.
It should be possible to set up a system that prevents fraud in mail voting. There needs to be a good way of checking that each ballot submitted is a legal one. That said, many states may not be careful about checking the legality of ballots.
You also have to take into account that some people might decide to vote in place of other people.
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Let's nominate the Nash Equilibrium for President.
at the ballot box.