Election madness

[dbigtex56]

Recent news reports pit Harris County Tax Assessor Collector Leo Vasquez against Houston Votes. From the Chronicle:

"The integrity of the voter roll of Harris County, Texas, appears to be under an organized and systematic attack by the group operating under the name Houston Votes," Vasquez said.

Link to full article

Houston Votes scheduled a news conference for today to counter the charges.

Meanwhile, all of Harris County's voting machines were destroyed this morning in a suspicious fire. Link to Chronicle article

Very peculiar coincidence.

[editor]

I got an e-mail about the fire, and thought it was strange. Now I know it's twice as strange as I thought. Hopefully this will play out into a book-worthy drama, and not be swept under some rug somewhere.

[little frau]

I've been wondering about voter registration for some time now and after reading that Chronicle piece linked here, I'm still wondering.

Is citizenship still a requirement for voter registration?

If so, what sort of identification has to be shown in order to register?

I haven't changed my name or address in over 30 years so I've no clue what the process is now.

[musicman]

What madness is occurring? The elections are in November.

[ricco67]

What madness is occurring? The elections are in November.

The fire involved ALL of the electronic voting machines. Chron.

It should make for an exciting time for anyone involved in making sure the election takes off without a hitch.

[KinkaidAlum]

Vasquez is going nuts over "voter registration" fraud but then admits that over 2/3rds of the applications sent in were indeed legitimate?!?!?!

The "fraud" in many cases appears to be duplicate applications which in many cases can be explained away if people can't remember if they registered for their current address. Poor people move more than the average American. Seems like an easy explanation to me.

These Tea Party folks are pretty un-American if their main objective is to suppress votes.

[20thStDad]

Vasquez is going nuts over "voter registration" fraud but then admits that over 2/3rds of the applications sent in were indeed legitimate?!?!?!

The "fraud" in many cases appears to be duplicate applications which in many cases can be explained away if people can't remember if they registered for their current address. Poor people move more than the average American. Seems like an easy explanation to me.

These Tea Party folks are pretty un-American if their main objective is to suppress votes.

Dealing with paperwork for this seems idiotic in this day and age. Thumbprint everyone, master record on file, make them responsible for updated addresses, and with a finger scan when you vote, there is no chance of double voting. This is what happens when regular (dumb) people are responsible for local/state government offices.

[Dub]

When worse comes to worse just ask the voter to produce a picture ID, then hand them a ballot (in two languages of course) and a #2 Ticonderoga pencil.

[jgriff]

Dealing with paperwork for this seems idiotic in this day and age. Thumbprint everyone, master record on file, make them responsible for updated addresses, and with a finger scan when you vote, there is no chance of double voting. This is what happens when regular (dumb) people are responsible for local/state government offices.

They're not dumb. They just want ineligible people to vote.

[dbigtex56]

Dealing with paperwork for this seems idiotic in this day and age. Thumbprint everyone, master record on file, make them responsible for updated addresses, and with a finger scan when you vote, there is no chance of double voting. This is what happens when regular (dumb) people are responsible for local/state government offices.

I agree that government seems to lag when comes to technological advances. Yet when attempts are made to modernize, they're met with great suspicion (many people still distrust the E-Slate.) Using thumbprints to verify eligibility may be a good idea, except to obtain and verify thumbprints from mail-in voters would be a nightmare.

They're not dumb. They just want ineligible people to vote.

"They"? Do you mean, "those people"?

[TheNiche]

I agree that government seems to lag when comes to technological advances. Yet when attempts are made to modernize, they're met with great suspicion (many people still distrust the E-Slate.) Using thumbprints to verify eligibility may be a good idea, except to obtain and verify thumbprints from mail-in voters would be a nightmare.

Fun fact about TheNiche; he's a fingerprinter, certified by the Department of Commerce to perform fingerprinting for the FBI.

In my (limited) experience, I came across lots of useless fingerprints. You'd be surprised at how many people have extra, missing, deformed, scarred, injured, calloused, or otherwise un-usable prints. And these things do change, after all, from wear and tear. It's especially problematic among the poor, whose occupations are physical and laborious. People that do clerical work are also prone to crappy fingerprints because of paper cuts.

Biometrics are neat, but they are not ideal for something as important as voting. Never mind that they can be pretty easily and inexpensively defeated.

"They"? Do you mean, "those people"?

How do you mean, as opposed to, "these people"? Which is the greater insult?

Myself, I take personal offense at being regarded as a person. People suck.

[dbigtex56]

Biometrics are neat, but they are not ideal for something as important as voting.

The system we have now doesn't even require a picture ID. Yet, confirmed instances of voter fraud are extremely rare, despite what our Tax Collector implies.

How do you mean, as opposed to, "these people"? Which is the greater insult?

'Those people' is the greater insult. It suggests distance or alienation. 'These people' suggests closeness or familiarity.

But, you knew that.

[TheNiche]

The system we have now doesn't even require a picture ID. Yet, confirmed instances of voter fraud are extremely rare, despite what our Tax Collector implies.

So...the present system is susceptible to fraud, and the ease with which it is committed and gotten away with is evidence that it does not happen frequently? Is that what you meant?

'Those people' is the greater insult. It suggests distance or alienation. 'These people' suggests closeness or familiarity.

But, you knew that.

I'm a glass-half-full kind of guy, but I'm not blind. Hence, the people with whom I am close and/or familiar are generally considered worthless, evil, dishonest, ornery, thoughtless, inadequate, hypocritical, incompetent, and so on and so forth, because they have proven themselves worthy of that description. People with whom I am not close and/or familiar get a pass. So yeah..."those people" are awesome. They could be on the sex offender registry or even Mormon and be better than most people I know.

[dbigtex56]

This is getting national attention:

"As I've said before, right-wing voter suppression campaigns are the most under-reported political scandal of the last 50-100 years. But there's never been anything like the criminal destruction of all the voting machines in the nation's fourth largest city. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to suspect the machines in Houston were destroyed by an arsonist. Warehouses don't regularly and spontaneously combust at four in the morning, especially warehouses containing all the voting tools in a pivotal city in a pivotal election."

Full article:Huffington Post - Glenn W Smith

edit:

I'm a glass-half-full kind of guy, but I'm not blind. Hence, the people with whom I am close and/or familiar are generally considered worthless, evil, dishonest, ornery, thoughtless, inadequate, hypocritical, incompetent, and so on and so forth, because they have proven themselves worthy of that description. People with whom I am not close and/or familiar get a pass. So yeah..."those people" are awesome. They could be on the sex offender registry or even Mormon and be better than most people I know.

I'd forgotten that this thread was about you. Forgive me for going off topic.

[little frau]

Vasquez is going nuts over "voter registration" fraud but then admits that over 2/3rds of the applications sent in were indeed legitimate?!?!?!

The "fraud" in many cases appears to be duplicate applications which in many cases can be explained away if people can't remember if they registered for their current address. Poor people move more than the average American. Seems like an easy explanation to me.

These Tea Party folks are pretty un-American if their main objective is to suppress votes.

In reading the city site (Vasquez's) I can find nothing which addresses the means by which eligibility is verified other than a state issued ID or SSA card. So the "fraud", if any, would start with the suspect identification process when the initial voter application is made.

We all know how easily a fake ID can be gotten. As recently as 3-4 weeks ago there was a large raid on a north side flea market with the target being vendors who were selling phony IDs. Are those folks who take the voter applications trained sufficiently so as to be able to determine an authentic SSA card or TDL from a fake?

All I'm saying is, if it's just a matter of saying "Are you a citizen of the USA?", then providing 'phony proof' that you are indeed a citizen, then it could follow that many folks are voting who should not, by law, be voting.

I don't know about the agenda of the Tea Party folks and I'm all for everyone to be able to vote. But if a foreign born person wants to vote, let them go through the whole process to become a citizen. I have a brother-in-law who did this and I'm proud of him for it.

And anyway, if the explanation that people forget if they've re-registered so they go ahead and register again three more times is actually OK and an accepted practice, then isn't Mr. Vasquez's office doing their job in spotting and pulling those duplicate applications? Isn't that what we'd want them to do?

[dbigtex56]

In reading the city site (Vasquez's) I can find nothing which addresses the means by which eligibility is verified other than a state issued ID or SSA card. So the "fraud", if any, would start with the suspect identification process when the initial voter application is made.

We all know how easily a fake ID can be gotten. As recently as 3-4 weeks ago there was a large raid on a north side flea market with the target being vendors who were selling phony IDs. Are those folks who take the voter applications trained sufficiently so as to be able to determine an authentic SSA card or TDL from a fake?

All I'm saying is, if it's just a matter of saying "Are you a citizen of the USA?", then providing 'phony proof' that you are indeed a citizen, then it could follow that many folks are voting who should not, by law, be voting.

I don't know about the agenda of the Tea Party folks and I'm all for everyone to be able to vote. But if a foreign born person wants to vote, let them go through the whole process to become a citizen. I have a brother-in-law who did this and I'm proud of him for it.

And anyway, if the explanation that people forget if they've re-registered so they go ahead and register again three more times is actually OK and an accepted practice, then isn't Mr. Vasquez's office doing their job in spotting and pulling those duplicate applications? Isn't that what we'd want them to do?

I agree that only people who are eligible to vote should be permitted to. I also passionately believe that registered, eligible voters be allowed to vote. It's a conundrum.

Yes, Mr. Vasquez's office is supposed to do exactly what you describe. He apparently resents being made to do his job. Perhaps he needs to find a line of work more to his liking.

[dbigtex56]

Info from Texas Secretary of State website.

Q. What illegal activities should a watcher look for?

A. The election judge may be notified of any activity that appears to be prohibited by law. If any of the following activities occurs, bring it to the election judge’s attention and note the individual(s) involved, including time and place of occurrence, if possible:

1. Election workers allowing voters who do not have a current voter registration certificate to vote without providing proof of identification. If a voter does not have his or her voter registration certificate, Texas law requires that he or she provide one of the following forms of identification:

(a) a driver’s license or personal identification card issued by the Texas Department of Public Safety or similar documents from other states;

( a form of identification containing a photograph that establishes a person’s identity (such as an employee identification card);

© a birth certificate or other document confirming birth that is admissible in a court of law and establishes a person’s identity;

(d) United States citizenship papers;

(e) a United States passport;

(f) official mail addressed to the person by name from a governmental agency;

(g) a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter; or

(h) any other form of identification presented by the Secretary of State’s office.

2. Electioneering and loitering within 100 feet of the entrance of the building in which a polling place is located. [sec. 61.003]. Examples of electioneering include, but are not limited to, the following:

• wearing a badge, insignia, emblem, or other item relating to a candidate or a measure. [sec. 61.010(a)].

• unauthorized posting of signs, posters or other similar items. [sec. 62.013]

• unlawful operation of a sound amplification device or soundtruck used for campaigning purposes within 1,000 feet of a building in which a polling place is located. [sec. 61.004]

NOTE: A candidate in an election commits a Class C misdemeanor if he or she is in the polling place for a purpose other than (1) voting or (2) official business in the building in which the polling place is located; however, a candidate may assist a voter without violating this section. [sec. 61.001(]

EXCEPTION: It is a defense to prosecution under Section 61.001( if the candidate is (1) not in plain view of persons in the voting area or the area where voters are being qualified and (2) not engaged in campaign activity. [sec. 61.001©].

3. Bribing voters [sec. 36.02, Penal Code];

4. Unlawfully influencing voters [sec. 61.008];

5. Coercing voters [sec. 36.03, Penal Code];

6. Unlawfully telling another person information that was obtained at the polling place about how a voter has voted [sec. 61.006];

7. Unlawfully giving information about the status of the vote count or the names of people who have voted before the polls close [sec. 61.007];

8. Tampering with voting equipment [sec. 127.127];

9. Voting illegally [sec. 64.012];

10. Unlawfully removing ballots from ballot box [sec. 276.003];

11. Harassing the election officials [sec. 32.075];

12. Unlawfully assisting voters [sec. 64.036];

13. Unlawfully accepting or refusing to accept voters [sec. 63.012];

14. Using a wireless communication device within 100 feet of polling place [secs. 33.052( and 62.011];

15. Interfering with the voting process; and

16. Violating any other Texas election laws.

Persons allowed in the polling place:

Q. Who is allowed inside the polling place?

A. 1. Election judge and clerks. [secs. 32.071 & 32.072].

2. Poll watchers and Secretary of State inspectors. [secs. 33.052 & 34.002].

3. Persons admitted to vote. [sec. 63.001].

4. Children under 18 years old who are accompanying a parent who is admitted to vote. [sec. 64.002(].

5. Persons providing assistance to or interpreting for a voter who is entitled to assistance or to an interpreter. [secs. 61.032 & 64.032; 42 U.S.C. 197aa-6].

6. Federal inspectors appointed by the U.S. Department of Justice.

7. Persons summoned or appointed by the presiding election judge to act as special peace officers to preserve order. [sec. 32.075].

Provisional Voting:

Individuals who claim to be registered but whose names do not appear on the voter registration list or voters who are unable to produce their certificate or another form of required identification at the polling place are required to vote provisionally. Provisional ballots are not counted until the voter registrar and early voting ballot board verify the voter's eligibility. The affidavit which provisional voters must sign also acts as a voter registration application, ensuring that individuals, who are not on the list of registered voters, are registered for future elections.

Q. Who is eligible to cast a provisional ballot?

A. The following individuals are eligible to cast a provisional ballot:

• An individual who claims to be properly registered and eligible to vote, but whose name does not appear on the list of registered voters and voter registrar cannot be reached or whose registration status cannot be confirmed by the voter registrar; or

• An individual who is not on the list and did not provide a certificate or other form of identification; or

• An individual who is registered to vote, but is trying to vote in a precinct other than the precinct where the voter is registered (on election day); or

• An individual who does not have his/her voter registration certificate and no form of identification; or

• An individual who has applied for a ballot by mail but has not returned the ballot or cancelled the ballot by mail with the early voting clerk; or

• An individual who is voting after 7:00 p.m. due to court order which extended voting hours; or

• An individual who is registered in the precinct but whose registered address is not located in the political subdivision conducting the election; or

• An individual who is attempting to vote in a primary election but has already participated in another party primary in the same election year.

Q. Who makes the determination if an individual is qualified to vote provisionally?

A. The election judge at the precinct makes that determination. If a voter is eligible to cast a provisional ballot, then the election judge immediately informs the voter of that right. In order to vote provisionally, the voter must complete and sign an "Affidavit of Provisional Voter," a form which will also serve as a voter registration application in the event the voter is not registered or as an update to the voter's registration record in the event the information is different.

Q. Are there cases when a provisional ballot will not be counted? When is a voter notified?

A. While a provisional voter may be allowed to vote at the polling place, there are certain circumstances in which they will immediately be informed that their ballot will not be counted. For example, the election judge will notify the voter that their ballot will not be counted if:

• the ballot is cast at a precinct in which the voter is not registered (regardless of whether the voter is registered in another precinct in same political subdivision); or

• if the voter is required to present identification because of an “ID” notation next to their name but does not; [examples of acceptable forms of identification include: a driver's license or state-issued ID card, birth certificate, passport, copy of current utility bill, bank statement or paycheck]; or

• the voter is attempting to vote in a primary election but has already voted in the other party’s primary election.

Q. If a voter applied for a ballot by mail, may he vote provisionally at the election day precinct polling place without returning the mail ballot to the election judge?

A. Yes. A voter who appears on the list of registered voters as having applied for and/or received a ballot by mail may go to the polling place and vote. If the voter does not have the ballot to return to the judge, he will have to vote a provisional ballot. If the mail ballot does not arrive at the ballot board before the provisional ballot, the provisional ballot will be counted. If the mail ballot does arrive at the ballot board before the provisional ballot, the mail ballot will be counted.

Q. How are provisional ballots reviewed and handled?

A. At the polling place, the election judge provides the provisional voter written notice informing the voter that they will be notified within 10 days after the local canvass as to whether or not their ballot was counted and, if not, why it was not counted. The notice also includes instructions and additional details regarding the provisional voting process.

Q. How is the secrecy of the ballot preserved?

A. The voter places the voted provisional ballot in a plain white secrecy envelope which in turn is placed inside the Provisional Affidavit Ballot Envelope. Provisional ballots are placed either in the general ballot box or in another designated, secure container until the voter registrar and early voting ballot board complete their review. The transfer and tabulation of these ballots are handled with the same care, secrecy and security as other ballots and voting system equipment. Note: If the voter is casting an electronic provisional ballot, the voter completes the affidavit on the provisional envelope but does not include a ballot.

Q. What is the deadline for reviewing provisional affidavits?

A. The voter registrar has 3 business days to review the voter’s registration record. The early voting ballot board must complete the processing and counting, where applicable, of the provisional ballots by the seventh day after the election. Notice must be delivered to provisional voters regarding whether their ballot was counted, noting a reason, if their ballot was not counted. This notice must be delivered no later than the 10th day after the local canvass.

Using English and interpreters:

All election officials, while on duty at the polling place, must use English, except when helping a voter who does not understand English. [sec. 61.031(a)].

Q. What is an interpreter and when is one used?

A. 1. If a voter cannot communicate in English, an election official may communicate with the voter in a language the official and the voter understand. [sec. 61.031(].

2. An interpreter may be used when the voter and the election official(s) helping the voter cannot speak the same language. [sec. 61.032].

17. Upon taking the oath of interpreter, any registered voter of the county may act as an interpreter for one or more voters. [secs. 61.035 & 61.033].

4. The interpreter may be a person provided by the authority conducting the election. However, even if an interpreter is provided, a voter may use his own interpreter. [sec. 61.032].

5. A watcher may request and receive an English translation of anything spoken in a language other than English by a voter or by an election official. [sec. 61.036].

Casting the ballot:

Q. If voters make a mistake marking their ballot, can they start over?

A. Yes. Voters who make mistakes while marking their paper or optical scan ballots may take the spoiled ballot to an election official and exchange it for a new ballot. A voter may only

receive up to two replacement ballots (the original ballot, plus two replacement ballots yields a total of three possible ballots per voter). [sec. 64.007(a) & (].

Q: If a voter is voting provisionally on paper or optical scan ballot, do they use the same type of ballot as a regular voter?

A: Yes, but the election officials may have a few ballots pre-stamped “provisional” in a separate stack from regular ballots. The following steps must occur:

(1) the voter votes the ballot;

(2) seals the ballot in the privacy envelope;

(3) seals the privacy envelope in the provisional ballot affidavit envelope; and

(4) casts the ballot in the regular ballot box or other designated secured container as directed by the election officials.

NOTE: Some electronic voting systems allow the voter to cast a provisional ballot directly on the machine.

Q. If a voter leaves a voted ballot in the voting station or elsewhere in the polling place rather than putting it in the ballot box, or if a voter voting on an electronic voting system leaves without finally casting his or her ballot, is the ballot counted?

A. No. The ballot cast by a “fleeing” voter is not cast. The judge should treat it as a cancelled ballot. [65.010(a)(4)] On an electronic voting system, the ballot is cancelled.

CONCLUSION

[jgriff]

I agree that government seems to lag when comes to technological advances. Yet when attempts are made to modernize, they're met with great suspicion (many people still distrust the E-Slate.) Using thumbprints to verify eligibility may be a good idea, except to obtain and verify thumbprints from mail-in voters would be a nightmare.

"They"? Do you mean, "those people"?

Absolutley not. Why would you think that? I'm not sure which "those" people you even mean. It seems like you've got the problem with "those" people not me.

If you don't think there are politicians out there who want people who are ineligible to vote for them then you are very naive.

[dbigtex56]

Absolutley not. Why would you think that? I'm not sure which "those" people you even mean. It seems like you've got the problem with "those" people not me.

If you don't think there are politicians out there who want people who are ineligible to vote for them then you are very naive.

Likewise, if you don't think there are politicians out there who don't want people who are eligible to vote for their opponents then you are very naive.

[RedScare]

The whole "voter fraud" thing is a manufactured crisis by those wishing to cast suspicion against the other party, and believed by those who know little about the mechanics or specifics of voting and voter registration. To begin with, voter participation is very low. Only 32% are expected to even vote this November. In the communities accused of promoting voter fraud, the percentage who vote is even less. It is incredibly hard to believe that a group that cares so little about voting by the ELIGIBLE voters would have a big problem with INeligible voters attempting to register. But, on certain radio stations and TV networks this is exactly what they are suggesting, and a sizable percentage of listeners and viewers believe it.

Secondly, the people in charge of ferreting out illegal voters and prosecuting them have prosecuted virtually no one. It was 6 the last time I heard. This in a state with some 13 million or so eligible voters. There just isn't any substance to the acusations, but they come up every election anyway.

Some people just love conspiracies. Even better is to hear suggestions that Democrats are behind the voting machine fire. Houston is Bill White's stronghold. He would be the last person to harm his best chance for votes. But, the suggestions come anyway.

Some people are also not very intelligent.

[TheNiche]

Secondly, the people in charge of ferreting out illegal voters and prosecuting them have prosecuted virtually no one. It was 6 the last time I heard. This in a state with some 13 million or so eligible voters. There just isn't any substance to the acusations, but they come up every election anyway.

That may be a better indicator of the difficulty of investigating voter fraud and law enforcement's priorities and/or resources than that voter fraud does not happen frequently.

For instance, I vaguely recall that very few (maybe a few dozen) were ever prosecuted under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Out of those, most of these charges were just piled on after someone was investigated and arrested for some other crime. But any self-respecting gun nut knows someone who was flagrantly violating the Ban. The problem is, it was so easy to violate and to get away with it--and frankly such an ineffective policy--that nobody really cared to try to enforce it.

Voting obviously is something that (a few) people care about, so suspected fraud does get investigated at least. But I'd imagine that the kind of obnoxious person that would report it is prone to false positives.

[barracuda]

That may be a better indicator of the difficulty of investigating voter fraud and law enforcement's priorities and/or resources than that voter fraud does not happen frequently.

For instance, I vaguely recall that very few (maybe a few dozen) were ever prosecuted under the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Out of those, most of these charges were just piled on after someone was investigated and arrested for some other crime. But any self-respecting gun nut knows someone who was flagrantly violating the Ban. The problem is, it was so easy to violate and to get away with it--and frankly such an ineffective policy--that nobody really cared to try to enforce it.

Voting obviously is something that (a few) people care about, so suspected fraud does get investigated at least. But I'd imagine that the kind of obnoxious person that would report it is prone to false positives.

But there was a dedicated and concerted effort to dig up voter fraud starting in 2002 and then continued under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The Justice Department started requiring all U.S. attorneys to designate district election officers with the specific purpose of investigating voter fraud starting in 2002. The cases were never found, even with this massive dedicated effort (nationally, only 24 cases ended in convictions or guilty pleas between Oct 2002 and Sept. 2005).

The number of guilty cases is mostly irrelevant though, as the main gist of the campaign to raise ire over voter fraud is intimidation and voter suppression in order to effect turnout, especially in tight contests.

[TheNiche]

But there was a dedicated and concerted effort to dig up voter fraud starting in 2002 and then continued under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The Justice Department started requiring all U.S. attorneys to designate district election officers with the specific purpose of investigating voter fraud starting in 2002. The cases were never found, even with this massive dedicated effort (nationally, only 24 cases ended in convictions or guilty pleas between Oct 2002 and Sept. 2005).

The number of guilty cases is mostly irrelevant though, as the main gist of the campaign to raise ire over voter fraud is intimidation and voter suppression in order to effect turnout, especially in tight contests.

What resources were expended, really? It strikes me as having been one of those programs where titles are bestowed on well-meaning people, most of whom are ineffective. And at the end of the day, they get to walk away having done nothing and feeling good about it. At least, that's what's in my mind's eye. I could be completely wrong. ...point being, the number of convictions is hardly a reliable indicator of the amount of wrongdoing.

And to be clear, I am just being nit-picky because Red left himself open on that one little point. I agree completely with his broader thesis.

[RedScare]

What resources were expended, really? It strikes me as having been one of those programs where titles are bestowed on well-meaning people, most of whom are ineffective. And at the end of the day, they get to walk away having done nothing and feeling good about it. At least, that's what's in my mind's eye. I could be completely wrong. ...point being, the number of convictions is hardly a reliable indicator of the amount of wrongdoing.

And to be clear, I am just being nit-picky because Red left himself open on that one little point. I agree completely with his broader thesis.

Actually, I didn't leave myself open at all. I didn't state the obvious, as I expected people to see it. To commit enough voter fraud to effect an election can take thousands of people. They must register numerous times under many aliases, or they must register thousands of otherwise ineligible voters dedicated to voting for one candidate. It is a felony to do this, so there must be a financial incentive. It would cost a fortune to do so. It is simply not a viable strategy. The people who would be inclined to vote for a candidate illegally usually can and do vote for the candidate legally, so no fraud is committed. It is simply a cool conspiracy theory that is wholly unworkable in reality. The better practice is ballot stuffing or rigged voting machines, but those methods are not the ones that Justice made an effort to uncover. Instead, they prosecuted people who helped the old and infirm vote who inadvertantly gave assistance that is considered illegal. The people pushing the voter fraud conspiracies know this. They also know that there are plenty of gullible people who will buy into an unworkable theory, just because they like to believe it.

The bad fraud is being committed, but it is not being investigated because it is committed much further up the food chain.

[crunchtastic]

Yawn. Red, wasn't it you who posted earlier on anticipated percentages for the mid term?

When we get to 70 or 80% actually bothering to vote, talk to me about election fraud.

We've turned representative democracy into a sad joke. Citizens v. FEC didn't really help matters.

[TheNiche]

Actually, I didn't leave myself open at all.

Yes you did, and you did again. I have not claimed that voter fraud is a viable strategy.

[TheNiche]

Yawn. Red, wasn't it you who posted earlier on anticipated percentages for the mid term?

When we get to 70 or 80% actually bothering to vote, talk to me about election fraud.

We've turned representative democracy into a sad joke. Citizens v. FEC didn't really help matters.

This is true enough, but for reasons unrelated to voter fraud.

[dbigtex56]

The bad fraud is being committed, but it is not being investigated because it is committed much further up the food chain.

The idea that people are actually going to polling places to attempt to throw an election is pretty silly. The real opportunity for casting spurious votes is mail-in ballots. Even then, as you say, further up the food chain is where there's real advantages to be gained.

Those machines didn't spontaneously combust. And I have grave doubts that it's the work of a lone wacko.

[KinkaidAlum]

I don't worry about who votes. I worry about who COUNTS the votes.

[gto250us]

The whole ID - Biometric thing can be solved with chips. We put them in our dogs with no problem. Why not put them in our kids or in all new citizens.