Voter Fraud

[sd'sker]

could it be anymore transparent?

 

Republicans Struggle To Find Examples Of Voter Fraud

The Associated Press reports:

Last year, Gessler estimated that 11,805 noncitizens were on the rolls. But the number kept getting smaller.[/indent]

After his office sent letters to 3,903 registered voters questioning their status, the number of noncitizens now stands at 141, based on checks using a federal immigration database. Of those 141, Gessler said 35 have voted in the past. The 141 are .004 percent of the state’s nearly 3.5 million voters. Even those numbers could be fewer.

 

Officials in Florida found 207 noncitizens on its voter list, .001 percent of the state’s voters, but they did not necessarily commit fraud. Florida’s purge discovered just one Canadian who illegally voted. In North Carolina, hundreds of voters have received letters requesting proof they were citizens, but an elections board member acknowledged there were just 12 instances of noncitizen voting. Iowa has filed charges against three noncitizen voters.

Unfortunately, voter supression tactics could disenfranchise millions of low-income and minority voters, including 10 million Hispanics.

Bombshell Study Claims 10 Million Latinos Could Be Disenfranchised By Voter ID Laws

New voter ID laws in 23 states have the potential to disenfranchise up to 10 million Latinos by preventing them from voting or discouraging them from registering, according to a new study from the civil rights group The Advancement Project...

 

... Polls have shown President Barack Obama with anywhere from a 30- to 40-point lead on Mitt Romney among Latino voters, though recent polls have shown that number closing a bit.

[JJ Husker]

I would agree that there is probably not a lot of voter fraud but, I do not get the argument that having stricter identification and voter registration measures somehow disenfranchises anyone. Fact- if you are a legal citizen with the right to vote, you can and will be able to exercise that right. Some of you who claim to know that fraud isn't wide spread should explain how tighter regulation and identification will somehow magically cause a deserving person to not be able to vote rather than simply claiming it's not a problem. Another question I have is; how would we know if it's widespread or not if there are not pretty tight measures in place. Seems to me that if there is an opportunity it is probably happening. Do some of you like the idea that those who are not legally entitled to vote can still participate in our elections if they are devious enough?

[sd'sker]

I would agree that there is probably not a lot of voter fraud but, I do not get the argument that having stricter identification and voter registration measures somehow disenfranchises anyone. Fact- if you are a legal citizen with the right to vote, you can and will be able to exercise that right. Some of you who claim to know that fraud isn't wide spread should explain how tighter regulation and identification will somehow magically cause a deserving person to not be able to vote rather than simply claiming it's not a problem. Another question I have is; how would we know if it's widespread or not if there are not pretty tight measures in place. Seems to me that if there is an opportunity it is probably happening. Do some of you like the idea that those who are not legally entitled to vote can still participate in our elections if they are devious enough?

you might want to re-read this thread. you have effectively culminated exactly what has been argued, in its entirety. the counterarguments have been flushed out pretty well, as well.

[AR Husker Fan]

I would agree that there is probably not a lot of voter fraud but, I do not get the argument that having stricter identification and voter registration measures somehow disenfranchises anyone. Fact- if you are a legal citizen with the right to vote, you can and will be able to exercise that right. Some of you who claim to know that fraud isn't wide spread should explain how tighter regulation and identification will somehow magically cause a deserving person to not be able to vote rather than simply claiming it's not a problem. Another question I have is; how would we know if it's widespread or not if there are not pretty tight measures in place. Seems to me that if there is an opportunity it is probably happening. Do some of you like the idea that those who are not legally entitled to vote can still participate in our elections if they are devious enough?

I think that there are two points that address this.

 

First, between 2002 and 2005, the Justice Department under the Bush administration made the investigation and prosecution of voter fraud a top priority. Out of the hundreds of millions of votes cast during that period, the department brought only 38 cases, only one of which involved impersonation fraud. When some U.S. attorneys refused to bring baseless prosecutions for voter fraud, the attorney general fired them; Justice Department officials stated that the evidence included cases in which President Bush and Karl Rove separately passed along complaints to Gonzales that prosecutors were not aggressively pursuing voter-fraud cases. In other words, even under the direction of an administration that made voter fraud prosecution a major emphasis, the Justice Department could find almost none. While there are claims of rampant voter fraud, the claims appear to be anecdotal; no rigerous study of the issue has ever uncovered wide-spread voter fraud.

 

Second, most efforts to curb voter fraud involve the use of voter ID requirements. On its face, that doesn't seem to be a problem. However, most of those efforts require that the prospective applicant for a voter ID jump through hoops that would either discourage obtaining the ID, or make it difficult to impossible. The most common appears to be having to pay a fee for the ID, or the use of multiple proof of identity, such as birth certificates, etc. - most of which carry an additional fee to obtain. While the fee may seem minimal to the average person, it's substantial to those on very limited incomes. I think most people would be fine with voter ID if there was no cost attached to it - and by cost, I mean both fees and lack of unnecessary, artifical impediments.

[strigori]

I would agree that there is probably not a lot of voter fraud but, I do not get the argument that having stricter identification and voter registration measures somehow disenfranchises anyone. Fact- if you are a legal citizen with the right to vote, you can and will be able to exercise that right. Some of you who claim to know that fraud isn't wide spread should explain how tighter regulation and identification will somehow magically cause a deserving person to not be able to vote rather than simply claiming it's not a problem. Another question I have is; how would we know if it's widespread or not if there are not pretty tight measures in place. Seems to me that if there is an opportunity it is probably happening. Do some of you like the idea that those who are not legally entitled to vote can still participate in our elections if they are devious enough?

for someone who talks about cutting government spending, and talks about a limited government, I find it ironic you are calling for laws for things that are not a problem.

[carlfense]

for someone who talks about cutting government spending, and talks about a limited government, I find it ironic you are calling for laws for things that are not a problem.

I've noticed that stated desires for limited government are often conditional on either the topic or which party holds the majority.

[JJ Husker]

I would agree that there is probably not a lot of voter fraud but, I do not get the argument that having stricter identification and voter registration measures somehow disenfranchises anyone. Fact- if you are a legal citizen with the right to vote, you can and will be able to exercise that right. Some of you who claim to know that fraud isn't wide spread should explain how tighter regulation and identification will somehow magically cause a deserving person to not be able to vote rather than simply claiming it's not a problem. Another question I have is; how would we know if it's widespread or not if there are not pretty tight measures in place. Seems to me that if there is an opportunity it is probably happening. Do some of you like the idea that those who are not legally entitled to vote can still participate in our elections if they are devious enough?

you might want to re-read this thread. you have effectively culminated exactly what has been argued, in its entirety. the counterarguments have been flushed out pretty well, as well.

 

You are correct, I did not read most of the posts in this thread (and still haven't). I read the first few and saw some people making excuses for why we should allow a condition to exist that might allow fraud to take place and so I commented. However, I do find it somewhat amusing and expectedly partisan that the default position for "progressives" and liberals is that voter fraud and welfare fraud are extremely rare and unimportant issues but something like medicare fraud, if prevented, can be used to fund a whole new entitlement program like Obamacare. At least I'm consistent, I would like all fraud eliminated.

[sd'sker]

I would agree that there is probably not a lot of voter fraud but, I do not get the argument that having stricter identification and voter registration measures somehow disenfranchises anyone. Fact- if you are a legal citizen with the right to vote, you can and will be able to exercise that right. Some of you who claim to know that fraud isn't wide spread should explain how tighter regulation and identification will somehow magically cause a deserving person to not be able to vote rather than simply claiming it's not a problem. Another question I have is; how would we know if it's widespread or not if there are not pretty tight measures in place. Seems to me that if there is an opportunity it is probably happening. Do some of you like the idea that those who are not legally entitled to vote can still participate in our elections if they are devious enough?

you might want to re-read this thread. you have effectively culminated exactly what has been argued, in its entirety. the counterarguments have been flushed out pretty well, as well.

 

You are correct, I did not read most of the posts in this thread (and still haven't). I read the first few and saw some people making excuses for why we should allow a condition to exist that might allow fraud to take place and so I commented. However, I do find it somewhat amusing and expectedly partisan that the default position for "progressives" and liberals is that voter fraud and welfare fraud are extremely rare and unimportant issues but something like medicare fraud, if prevented, can be used to fund a whole new entitlement program like Obamacare. At least I'm consistent, I would like all fraud eliminated.

first, i agree. fraud is bad. second, obamacare is not an entitlement, that is the point of the mandate. it is merely added regulations and forcing everyone to buy in to fund it. economy of scales and all. obamacare is a tax. hate it for whatever reason, but i do not think it is fair to hate it as an entitlement.

[JJ Husker]

I misused the word entitlement. I apologize. However, please excuse the mistake, it seemed appropriate to lump it in with some of these other programs that we also cannot fully afford and are not self sufficient without dipping into other funding sources.

[sd'sker]

I misused the word entitlement. I apologize. However, please excuse the mistake, it seemed appropriate to lump it in with some of these other programs that we also cannot fully afford and are not self sufficient without dipping into other funding sources.

apology accepted.

[carlfense]

However, I do find it somewhat amusing and expectedly partisan that the default position for "progressives" and liberals is that voter fraud and welfare fraud are extremely rare and unimportant issues but something like medicare fraud, if prevented, can be used to fund a whole new entitlement program like Obamacare.

Did anyone ever actually claim that eliminating medicare fraud could wholly fund Obamacare or are you exaggerating?

 

Medicare fraud probably costs us between $60-100 billion dollars a year.

 

Your examples (other than the word "fraud") aren't really analogous. One addresses a problem that hasn't been shown to exist by making it more difficult (or impossible) for many citizens to exercise their fundamental right to vote. The other could save tens of billions of dollars annually without infringing on anyone's rights.

 

At least I'm consistent, I would like all fraud eliminated.

Hey! Me too! Let's try to do it while preserving the fundamental rights of the people.

[JJ Husker]

However, I do find it somewhat amusing and expectedly partisan that the default position for "progressives" and liberals is that voter fraud and welfare fraud are extremely rare and unimportant issues but something like medicare fraud, if prevented, can be used to fund a whole new entitlement program like Obamacare.

Did anyone ever actually claim that eliminating medicare fraud could wholly fund Obamacare or are you exaggerating?

 

Medicare fraud probably costs us between $60-100 billion dollars a year.

 

Your examples (other than the word "fraud") aren't really analogous. One addresses a problem that hasn't been shown to exist by making it more difficult (or impossible) for many citizens to exercise their fundamental right to vote. The other could save tens of billions of dollars annually without infringing on anyone's rights.

 

At least I'm consistent, I would like all fraud eliminated.

Hey! Me too! Let's try to do it while preserving the fundamental rights of the people.

 

I didn't claim eliminating fraud was the sole source of funding so, no I'm not exagerrating. But that element has been touted by Obama as a significant source of revenue to pay for the ACA. Hey, I'm all for drastically reducing medicare fraud. However, my preference would be that they do it because it is the right thing to do, should already be doing it, and not act like it's some new found source of magically appearing money.

 

We agree. Do you have an example of how the fundamental rights of the people are violated by assuring that those who vote do in fact have the right to vote and that they are properly identified and acting legally? I could make the case that for every single fraudulent vote that is cast, another citizens vote is nullified and therefore their fundamental rights are not preserved. I don't think this an area where we should be trying to claim it saves money or limits government. It is the core of our form of government and I think it needs to be near pristine. I don't see any reason we cannot assure almost 100% compliance in this country with todays technology and the amount we already spend on government. It may not be a big problem (we don't really know) but it should be administered so it isn't a concern at all.

[carlfense]

I didn't claim eliminating fraud was the sole source of funding so, no I'm not exagerrating.

Isn't that almost exactly what you said?

 

. . . but something like medicare fraud, if prevented, can be used to fund a whole new entitlement program like Obamacare.

You didn't say "can be used to partially fund Obamacare." You said "can be used to fund a whole new entitlement program like Obamacare."

Do you have an example of how the fundamental rights of the people are violated by assuring that those who vote do in fact have the right to vote and that they are properly identified and acting legally?

What are you looking for exactly? Something like this?

"[A]n excess of 20 percent of the voters flagged as 'non-citizens' in Miami-Dade are, in fact, citizens. And the actual number may be much higher." If this ratio holds for the rest of the names on the non-citizens list, more than 35,000 eligible voters could be disenfranchised. Those alleged non-citizens have already included a 91-year-old World War II veteran who’s voted since he was 18 and a 60-year-old kennel owner who has voted in the state for four decades. It’s impossible to quantify how many eligible voters will be scrubbed from the rolls if they’ve moved, aren’t home, don’t have ready access to citizenship documents, or won’t bother to reply to the menacing letter.

http://www.rollingst...xtreme-20120530

[knapplc]

Apparently the Republicans are onto something with this whole voter fraud thing.

 

GOP Quietly Hires Firm Tied to Voter Fraud Scandal for Work in Battleground States

 

The Palm Beach Post report last night that a Florida Republican Party contractor turned in at least 106 “questionable” registration firms, with “similar signatures” and wrong addresses, doesn’t seem like a national news story. But it has unwoven a somewhat concealed effort by Republicans in several states to deploy a firm with an ugly history of allegedly destroying Democratic voter registration forms and other acts of fraud.

 

The contractor in Florida is called Strategic Allied Consulting, a business entity created a few months ago and registered online by a former Arizona Republican Party director named Nathan Sproul.

 

Sproul, a consultant based in Tempe, is infamous for accusations that his firms have committed fraud by tampering with Democratic voter registration forms and suppressing votes. Sproul was hired by the Romney campaign for a period of five months that began last November and ended in March. But now there’s evidence that the payments continued, only to a different name.

 

As Greg Flynn of BlueNC pointed out earlier this month, Strategic Allied Consulting recently put up a proxy to hide the fact that its website was registered by Sproul; but not before Flynn took a screen shot. Flynn notes that the firm has been aggressively hiring in Nevada, North Carolina, Virginia and Florida. He flagged two large payments to the firm from GOP committees in Florida and North Carolina.

[JJ Husker]

I didn't claim eliminating fraud was the sole source of funding so, no I'm not exagerrating.

Isn't that almost exactly what you said?

 

. . . but something like medicare fraud, if prevented, can be used to fund a whole new entitlement program like Obamacare.

You didn't say "can be used to partially fund Obamacare." You said "can be used to fund a whole new entitlement program like Obamacare."

Do you have an example of how the fundamental rights of the people are violated by assuring that those who vote do in fact have the right to vote and that they are properly identified and acting legally?

What are you looking for exactly? Something like this?

"[A]n excess of 20 percent of the voters flagged as 'non-citizens' in Miami-Dade are, in fact, citizens. And the actual number may be much higher." If this ratio holds for the rest of the names on the non-citizens list, more than 35,000 eligible voters could be disenfranchised. Those alleged non-citizens have already included a 91-year-old World War II veteran who’s voted since he was 18 and a 60-year-old kennel owner who has voted in the state for four decades. It’s impossible to quantify how many eligible voters will be scrubbed from the rolls if they’ve moved, aren’t home, don’t have ready access to citizenship documents, or won’t bother to reply to the menacing letter.

http://www.rollingst...xtreme-20120530

You interpreted "whole" differently than I used it but I can see where it could be interpreted as the "whole" source of funding if you were so inclined to. I simply meant it as an adjective for the program (i.e. a whole new uniform, a whole new look, a whole new hole in the ground).

 

Yes, that is sort of the type of example I was looking for. Problem being, the reason they were flagged as a non-citizens is not given. As disturbing as it might be how a 91 year old veteran made that list, my question is what caused him to get on that list. did he not fill out some form correctly? Was he too old and feeble to follow instructions? Does anybody in the state of Florida know what the hell they are doing when it is at all related to elections? I think we can agree that government beaurocrats could f up a wet dream so it isn't surprising to me. But, was it anything intentional aimed at a certain group, class, race, party of people? I doubt it, probably just our highly efficient government at work. IMO, a lawful citizen being refused their right to vote is exactly the same infringement as allowing someone without the right to vote. It gets politicized when you start considering the demographics. I believe it is probably true that the majority of non-citizens (those without a lawful right to vote) or very low income people (those without the resources to absorb any additional costs associated with registering correctly) would tend to vote democratic so therefore, any attempt to assure legitimate voter identification is seen as an anti-dem thing. I get it. But, I also acknowledge the flip side of the equation which says that every vote cast by one not entitled to vote disenfranchises some legal voter. I don't think there is any widespread conspiracy by anyone to keep any legal citizen from voting. If/when that does happen, my money is on a failure of our government to manage anything. The answer isn't to resign ourselves to the fact that the government can't manage it and therefore we can't demand better compliance. The answer is to jerk the slack out of the incompetence in our government and make the whole process more exacting. If we can't assure citizens the right to vote and enforce no voting by non-citizens, we're even more f'd than I think we are. Come to think of it, more and more I arrive at the same conclusion; We're f'd. Or, I'm getting old and cranky-nah.