I just spent way too much time going through those links and here are some thoughts:

The goal of the system is to allow one person one vote. There are two ways to screw up the system:
1. Allow people to cast more than one vote.
2. Prevent people from casting their one vote.

Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to write a long discussion, so here is the short version.

While there are multiple cases of “over registration” (dead people, Fred Flinstone, duplicates), I have not seen evidence that these people actually cast votes (by which I mean, someone else is voting for them). And I cannot figure out a practical way for someone to cheat this way. (A few votes, yes, but not thousands).

On the other hand, disenfranchisement can be a highly effective and efficient way to alter votes by the thousands. Failing to register voters based on affiliation is a particularly effective and heinous example. Any official action which disenfranchises a class of people should be inspected very closely.

As for WindsOfChange’s comments regarding the “Drudge Report re: new DNC advice to election operatives: declare voter intimidation — even if none exists “, this is extreme misrepresentation. I followed the links (but missed Drudge) to the DNC page. Nowhere do they say suggest making false accusations. They essentially say, be proactive, prepare in advance, have public figures talk about it, whether or not there is current evidence. This is sound advice even if your intention is only to prevent voter intimidation.

Posted by: James at October 15, 2004 12:40 PM

Please provide specific (not anecdotal) examples, James, of voter disenfranchisement (ie court cases, etc) with links, if you don’t mind.

Because what you are describing is a crime, if indeed it is actually occurring, and should be treated and prosecuted as such. Because if steps are not being taken to treat these things as crimes, conventional wisdom suggests that A) someone is not taking it seriously enough to file charges B) there isn’t enough evidence to support a case—a particularly damning possibility with regard to “voter intimidation” or C) the whole business is a bunch of bullshit.

However, this is what Drudge referred to:

1. If there are any signs of present or expected intimidation activity, in advance of election day, launch a press program that might include the following elements:
[…]
2. If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a “pre-emptive strike” (particularly well-suited to states in which there techniques have been tried in the past).

I hardly think that this is a far cry from what Drudge posted. Sounds to me like the Democratic jury has come back before the trial has started……or in reality’s case…before charges are even filed.

Posted by: Ebonic Plague at October 15, 2004 03:12 PM

To start, here’s the whole quote from the DNC. Please let me know which part leads you to believe they are suggesting anyone should make false accusations:

2. If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged yet, launch a “pre-emptive strike” (particularly well-suited to states in which there techniques have been tried in the past).

• Issue a press release

i. Reviewing Republican tactic used in the past in your area or state

ii. Quoting party/minority/civil rights leadership as denouncing tactics that discourage people from voting

• Prime minority leadership to discuss the issue in the media; provide talking points

• Place stories in which minority leadership expresses concern about the threat of intimidation tactics

• Warn local newspapers not to accept advertising that is not properly disclaimed or that contains false warnings about voting requirements and/or about what will happen at the polls

3. Train field staff, precinct workers, and your own poll watchers thoroughly in the rules they need to know for election day.

4. Plan and completely prepare for possible legal action well in advance of election day

5. Have Secretary of State record public service announcements about election day – when polls are open, who is eligible, etc.

Posted by: James at October 15, 2004 03:40 PM

On disenfranchisment: I don’t have the means to do extensive research, but there are several possibilities noted in the WindsOfChange article. These are not documented cases, but cases under investigation (or so).

(in no particular order)
1. the Milwaukee situation (Milwaukee has 382,000 registered voters, they expect alot more, they ask for 938,000 ballots, they get 600,000 some). Danger of disenfranchisement: if they run out of applications (which has happened in their past), voters are disenfranchised.

2. Oregon & Nevada: people are taking voter registrations but destroying the Democratic ones. Apparently a liberal group may have done a similar thing in Florida. A big difference is that the Oregon/Nevada group was funded by the Republican National Committee.

3. Florida felons and “purge lists.”

4. Ohio Officials To Defy Law Meant to Reduce Voter Fraud (http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/004647.html)Ohio has law that voters must vote in their own precincts. Apparently, counties there have been ignoring this law for some time. The Republican Secretary of State has ordered that the law be followed.

I’m not making judgments in any of these cases. I’m just saying these cases deserve the most scrutiny. And when faced with balancing voter fraud vs. disenfranchisement, I would bet that the greatest danger is in disenfranchisement almost everytime. My mind could be changed, but you would probably need proof.

And to finish with a more partisan thought, I’m going to make the point that the Republicans seem to be the most common culprits of disenfranchisement. But I suspect that’s only because they have more opportunity. Those in greatest danger of disenfranchisement seem to be the poor, which are at least perceived as more likely to vote Democratic. I’m sure if there were simple ways to disenfranchise the rich, we’d see more stuff on both sides.

Posted by: James at October 15, 2004 04:12 PM

James,

I don’t mean to be churlish here, but what you have said exactly proves my point. You provide no evidence other than a few anecdotal cases to prove an implied charge of a widespread Republican campaign to disenfranchise voters. That’s why I asked you to find actual citations. Because a cursory glance at Google will reveal this for what it is: cheap demagoguery and fear mongering of a non-issue.

What the Republicans are being accused of is a systematic and methodical campaign to disenfranchise—either by eliminating them as a group, or to somehow “intimidate” them from voting, groups of people who will vote Democrat. It’s a compeltely racist, baseless charge and its bullshit.

Please let me know which part leads you to believe they are suggesting anyone should make false accusations:

I did this, James. I even boldfaced the part that implied that. But in addition, just look at the wording:

If no signs of intimidation techniques have emerged YET

Notice that last word there. Yet. As in, “The Republicans haven’t done anything….yet…but they will.”

As for the exact examples: How about, James, if I said this: “I am not a racist, unlike some people I know. Now I’m not saying that my opponent, James, is a racist, but I want you to know, that if he were to ever say or do anything racist, (because people like him may have in the past), then by golly, I would be against it, because hey, you never know. And I won’t even MENTION how racist James has been in the past. In fact, I just issued a press release asking James if he denies charges that he’s a racist”

It’s the same thing, James. A backhanded accusation, with no evidence, and no possibility of rebuttal by the accused. Assuming a forgone conclusion, and then forcing a person to defend themselves from a baseless accusation. It’s cheap, unethical, and bullshit. And it should be below the Democratic party.

And by listing the things you did, you once again prove my point: Let’s look at them:

1) “the Milwaukee situation (Milwaukee has 382,000 registered voters, they expect alot more”

James, if only 382,000 are registered, they can’t “expect a lot more”. The only people who can vote are those registered to vote. Registration is now closed. Examining why a district needs three times as many ballots as voters is perfectly appropriate. Any accusations of “disenfranchisement” are merely a distraction from a clear case of voter fraud.

2) What these people did, James, is a crime. It should be treated that way. And again, if there is sufficient evidence linking them to the RNC, then someone should file charges. If there is simply a peripheral relationship that is being used as a cheap excuse to associate innocent people with a crime, then that also is a crime, and the Democrats doing it should be prosecuted.

3) There is disagreement as to whether convicted felons should be allowed to vote. That does not amount to “disenfranchisement”

4) I’m not sure how this reference amounts to voter disenfranchisement. Ohio has this law to keep people from voting in one place and then turning around and voting somewhere else. All Kenneth Blackwell said was that people who didn’t vote in their own precinct would not be allowed to vote——except in their own precinct, mainly because Ohio has no reliable way to track voter fraud that way. That’s the law. How is that “disenfranchisement?”

I’m going to make the point that the Republicans seem to be the most common culprits of disenfranchisement.

Translation: “I’m going to continue parroting the Democratic party line that Republicans are engaged in a comprehensive plan to eliminate certain voters even though I have demonstrated I have no evidence of this.”

I say again, Drudge was right on target.

Posted by: Ebonic Plague at October 15, 2004 04:59 PM

My blog-mate thinks he has discovered evidence of Voter Fraud in Clark County, Ohio!

He’s received several calls at his house from a Democratic organization… for people who don’t live there.

Check it out: http://xoconvergence.blogspot.com/2004/10/clark-county-has-voter-fraud.html

Posted by: chublogga at October 19, 2004 08:49 PM