Redstate

...while the Undecided vote tends to break for Democrats, the Dead vote always does.

Paper ballots tied to photo-ids would make fraud even more difficult.  Paper ballots and ballot boxes can be sequentially numbered and inventoried -- Diebold ballots cannot.  Every idea geared toward facilitating voting (absentee, early and provisional ballots; motor-voter; same-day registration) just seems to encourage fraud.

Don't forget to include New Orleans on your roster of Corrupt/Controlled-by-Ds/Immemorial, Leon.

--furious

I get really uncomfortable when Republicans start talking about mass Democratic electoral fraud with the same smug certainty that some Democrats reserve for DIEBOLD!!!! claims.

This only seems to come up in close elections, though, and that's what recounts are for.  so I just can't get worked up about electoral process matters one way or the other.

many years ago.  Seems they "forgot" to reset the voting machines back to zero in some polling places and only on certain poll positions.  It came out during a recount that some districts cast more votes than they had voters.  Nobody knows how widespread the practice was because many of the machines had already been reset by the time they checked.

...Nixon v. Kennedy?  Bush v. Gore?  Landrieu v. Jenkins?  Thune v. Johnson?  Rossi v. Gregoire?

Two presidential, two Senate, and one Governor's race seem like big deals.  It's in those close races that vote fraud gives the most bang for the buck and is hardest to detect because fewer fraudulent votes would be required to tip the outcome.

I can get pretty worked up about swinging a state like Wisconsin (10 electoral votes) or New Mexico (5) to the BLUE by stuffing ballot boxes in Milwaukee or Albequerque.

Truth is, Democrats control most of the major urban political machines, and ballot distribution and counting is a local matter.  If they want to cry foul about Republican  Secy's of State in Florida and Ohio, by all means let's start with the Elections Commissions in Palm Beach and Cuyahoga counties.

Truth also is, it was the Gore campaign that started the lawyering in Florida in 2000 and the Kerry campaign that had 10,000 lawyers poised for a Florida II in 2004.  Trying to stuff ballot boxes after the election, as it were.

--furious

So here and there we have a few controversial elections?  If we take the ones you list, and add in Bush v. Kerry in Ohio to appease the Democrats, that's a rather small percentage of the number of nationally-important elections we have in this country (yes, I count each state's presidential elector vote separately, because logistically they are independent).

I don't think we can ask for perfection, so if the worst we get is one bad apple here and there, I'm honestly satisfied.

If you can PROVE fraud, rather than alleging it over and over and over, without any evidence, then I hope for vigorous prosecution.

It's like what Moulitsas said: You can claim electoral fraud as many times as you want, but it doesn't make it so.

standard isn't going to ger you many elections to point to.  

OTOH, I find it instructive that every time some proposal is floated to improve the reliability of elections like photo id's, or - God help us - purging the voter rolls completely and starting from scratch so we could eliminate folks who've died or moved from the rolls, the Democrats turn out legions of lawyers and start whining about all the people we're disenfranchizing.

We need to stop trying to make it "easier" to vote and start worrying about making the vote more reliable.

fool you.

Remember that when dems get caught on something, they always use the 'they all do it' lie.

Wedon't stuff ballot boxes, have dead vote, or seek courts to overturn good votes anywhere near the frequency it is shown the dems do.

As Rossi showed in Washington, the only thing that's kept Republicans from whining in court as much as the Democrats, is that the Republicans have been winning more.

There are enough people in either party with a win at all costs attitude that either party is capable of fraud.

Demonization of the Democrats is not a healthy thing to do if you want to make smart decisions.

"Bush v Kerry in Ohio™", because that's all it is. Bush v Kerry in Iowa was much closer than in Ohio, but the Dems don't talk about that, since it wouldn't have changed the outcome. New Mexico was also closer than Ohio. Dems ignore, same reason.

Also, it was clear that something was seriously wrong in Rossi v Gregoire. It gave the impression that recounts are for giving Dem county commissioners enough time to "find" enough votes to put the Dem over the top. "Finding" missing ballots nine days after the election? The system needs fixin'. And every time a fix is proposed, the Dems play the race card. That tells me that the Dems don't want the system fixed.

I oppose the creation of any more national privacy-violating databases, and I also think the Constitution's delegation of elections to the states means what it says, so am I a fraudster?

And as for Rossi, you might want to watch it with those conspiracy theories.  Putting "find" in quotation marks does not make the found ballots fraudulent, you know.  How powerful is that conspiracy in Washington that nobody's been able to prove any fraud by the ballot counters there?

There are enough people in either party with a win at all costs attitude that either party is capable of fraud.

All the more reason to make it more difficult for ineligible and fraudulent votes to be cast. But it seems every time we see a possible solution, it is Republicans who propose, and Democrats who oppose.

If you keep proposing the same Big Government ideas, and keep getting them shot down, then don't be surprised when the ideas keep getting shot down by the same people when you propose them again.

You also need to set some parameters of what kind of trade-off you're willing to accept here.  How far are you willing to go to fight unproven frauds?

I oppose the creation of any more national privacy-violating databases

I have no idea where that came from. There is nothing new about being required to register to vote. And what is wrong with making sure that the rolls of registered voters is accurate? And what is wrong with being required to positively identify yourself before voting?

These aren't "big government" solutions. They're common sense solutions.

As for King County WA, if the "found" votes weren't fraudulent, tell me why the local Dems up there weren't calling for the county commissioner's head for losing legitimate ballots in heavily Dem precincts in a close election? If it was just gross incompetence, why did Dems defend him so spiritedly?

The problem with being required to positively identify yourself isn't that in itself; the problem is when people start talking about forcing people to use identification cards which link you into a state or federal database (which is what most or every state's current card uses; and what most proposals for a federal card do).

As for King County, maybe they weren't mad because they won?  Winning improves one's mode immensely, I think.  Dmeocrats didn't start howling about voting machines nationwide until they lost a close election; I don't remember Republicans throwing hissy fits over Florida when Bush won.  No, I only recall the big complaints over fraud start up HERE after Washington and South Dakota.

I think by now I've said most of what I'm going to be able to say in this thread, so I'll scale back my participation here at this point.  Let's call it a phased withdrawl, because the gains aren't going to be worth the effort I don't think.

and anyone close to that knows it.  I'll happily "Demonize" the Ds because they pretty much have a monopoly on voter fraud.  We hear all this "stuff" about turnout, but the fact is voter registration rolls are totally corrupted by motor voter registrations, welfare and unemployment office registrations, and the inability to purge the rolls that there is no way to know how many legitamately eligible voters there are.

The cynic in me says the reason so many are so into the paper voting machine "receipt" is to make sure that only people who really voted get paid and only get paid once.

If you have control of the government, you have the registration rolls and can easily generate a list of everyone who hasn't voted in the last couple of elections; just turn that over to your precinct captains and you can vote those people.  Likewise, vital statistics can give you a list of everyone who has died since the last election and you can restore their suffrage as well.

All this stuff is par for the course in Blue states and doughnut cities and it is at best naive to pretend it isn't.

So in your view, do Republicans ever lose, or are they just robbed every time?

And how do you tell the difference between the losses and the steals?

unless you don't have a bank account, a driver's license, or participate in social security this bogus "link to a database" red herring is just a ludicrous supposition on its face.

The idea that there is a right to anonymity is just not right and the idea that you should be able to vote without proving eligibility beggars the imagination.

The solution is simple, if you are so paranoid about being watched by the ZOG or the UN or the RNC or [insert your favorite bogeyman here] then stay home. Otherwise, give the election of our government the same degree of security that is required when you cash a check at the grocery store.

This is why I'm making the phased withdrawl.

You can take your accusation of mental illness and stuff it up your tin foil hat that you wear to protect yourself from those massive Democratic conspiracies to steal every election, except for all those ones they keep losing.

but they NEVER win a close election where the Ds are in control of the machinery.  I know several people who were involved in the WA recounts and they openly brag about how they pulled that one off.  It is not coincidental that WA public employees got unlimited collective bargaining rights almost immediately upon Gregoire's ascention.  The unions, AFSCME particularly, had to be compensated for their "great service."

Here in AK, we've had two gubernatorial races in the last couple of decades decided by fraudulent voting in the Democrat controlled rural areas of the state.  In one the SC goes so far as to find that it was fraud but declines to overturn the election.

but this sort of nonsensical ranting about all manner of privacy issues has become your stock in trade.

Maybe one day you'll be a serious commenter again.

When they stop acting like demons.

Don't over look the fact that the dems stole the Washington election.

The advent of casino gambling (or "gaming", as the industry insists on calling itself) gave Louisiana's Democratic Party a new avenue to skew election results their way, without overtly breaking the rules (or perhaps I should say, without violating accepted norms of electoral behavior).

Poltical power in New Orleans (pre-Katrina, at least) rested in the hands of the "get-out-the-vote" organizers who could deliver large numbers of well-coordinated voters, to be delivered to the polls with voting instructions in one hand and a $5 bill in the other. The polite term for the juice is "walking-around money".

How do you make a statewide issue skew Democratic? Just make sure that there is a gambling-related issue on the same ballot in the New Orleans precincts. The casino interests will make sure there's plenty of walking-around money come election day. Large numbers of highly reliable votes will be trooped to the polls in a most cost-efficient way.

Senator Mary Landrieu is in office today because this dynamic was in play for her first election in 1996.

Post-Katrina, who knows? I would, however, caution any city or state that thinks that casino gambling is the perfect panacea for its economic woes. Once the genie's out of the bottle, it's mighty hard to put back.

but the dems don't talk about that one either.

voting.

I don't think this overly imposes on anyone, and it at least requires that one prove they are the person they say they are before casting a vote.

Issue a voting card to people when they register.  Then you only have to train poll workers to verify a single form of identification card, and no burden is placed on the voter since you already have to register to vote.

There is no such thing as a "right to privacy"  when it comes to  verifying one's identity.

Using a form of ID to show that you are the person on the  clerk's rolls prior to voting is reasonable and needed.  Drivers licenses are often used because persons lose their registration cards issued

by the county.  The only thing that the Government finds out, is that you are who you say you are.

The bigger problem is voter  registration  in the first place.  Some states have registration by mail.  Voters are not ever required to verify their U.S.  citizenship.  Anybody can fill out the form and mail it.  The drivers license used for ID does not prove citizenship because any legal resident can have one.

I had an uncle who used to vote twice in every election because he was registered in two counties.  At the time, the two counties couldn't compare notes.

to completely wipe the rolls clean January 1 of every presidential election year. Let everyone reregister once every four years.

Or maybe every 8 years.

...for something as mundane as boarding an airplane or using my ATM card for a face-to-face purchase or picking up a prescription at Walgreens.

I have to provide provide privacy-violating information for something as intrusive and unpleasant as paying my taxes.

I shouldn't mind providing positive ID for something as sacred as voting.  My name, address and phone number are already on scary databases -- the voter rolls and the DMV.  Presenting the ID that has me on one pre-existing database for validation against a list that has me on another pre-existing database should be the least of my privacy worries.  Get over it already, you.

I should be more worried about ballot-box stuffing by dead or serial voters negating my one-man one-vote rights.

You really should visit the Soundpolitics.com archives for the dish on the King County (Seattle) Ballot Follies.  Civil servants can't be THAT serially incompetent, and all in one candidate's favor, to boot...can they?

--furious

Saying "Lalala prove it" and "What, me worry?" over and over again hardly count as "gains".

But what should we expect from someone who cites Kos as an authority?

--furious

"Either party is capable of fraud."

In your own words -- prove it or lose it.

--furious

...won't work where same day registration and provisional ballots are allowed.  Won't work in lax absentee ballot jurisdictions, either.

Try again.

--furious

most states use all sorts of volunteer registrars, including the parties themselves, labor unions, even churches.  Nothing stops a registrar from registering dead people, non-existent people, or the same person over and over under different names.

It takes two steps: first the state's election authority must cross match registrations including making sure that registering in one state voids registration in another - that's done with DLs now.  Once the registration is validated that there is a reasonably certainty this is a real and singular person, that person is issued a voter ID.  Second, a person must present the voter ID and some form of positive, picture ID in order to actually vote.  It is no different nor more intrusive that presenting both a boarding pass and picture ID in order to get on a plane.

And BTW, there will still be fraud if whatever party is controlling the machinery wants it; it will just be harder and more expensive to do.

if we require positive ID then dead voters are being disenfranchised. Don't you understand, once a Democrat voter always a Democrat voter.

is too great a burden to re-register.  Better yet, is an automatic purge from the list if you haven't voted in, say, two general elections.

There is no simple, single, solution to voter irregularities that will appease everyone.  But one can come up with a synthesis of techniques that can solve the majority of issues on both sides of the fence.  As a computer professional, I've been watching the debate from both sides for years, and have been suggesting the following scenario:

• All voting machines generate a complete and verifiable paper trail.
  
• All ballots are tied to an electronic ID involving a public/private keypair system, where part of the key comes from your voter ID card.
  
• The private key can only be unlocked by court order, and can be used to identify and eliminate a specific ballot which has been proven to be fraudulent.
  
• If you show up with ID, but the machine doesn't recognize you as being a valid voter in that precinct, then the vote is still recorded and marked as provisional.  It doesn't actually count until the voter has been identified as a valid voter.
  
• If you show up without proper ID, then a photo voter ID (useful only for voting) is generated on the spot at the polls (for free).  As above, the vote is provisional.

This is, of course, much simplified, but the basic ideas are sound, and will eliminate most methods of fraud that are seen from both sides of the fence.  It doesn't, however, eliminate fraud which comes when a voter's validity is being determined (although that can be caught in other ways), nor does it eliminate those who have obtained a valid ID and registration through fraudulent means.  (Identity theft, etc.)  It solves the so called "poll tax" issue by making the process of obtaining a photo ID free and convenient.

I see three problems preventing this solution from working.  The first is cost -- doing this would require new voting machines once again, not to mention the cost of being able to register and get voter ID cards at each voting site.  The second is that it may be difficult convincing people that the public/private key mechanism doesn't cause problems with anonymity in voting -- it's a technological solution that's very difficult to explain to a non-technical person.  (Believe me, I've tried...)  Finally, the third is that, despite all the rhetoric I see flying from both sides of the fence on this issue, I actually don't think that either side really wants to work with the other to solve it completely.  They're both happy finger pointing and making it a campaign issue.