Isn't a worry about unorganized, 'whimsical' voter fraud just a worry that if people think it's easy to vote, they might actually show up and vote Democrat?

Well, I think the organized public fuss about the worry is based on minimizing the Democratic vote, but some people probably believe in it sincerely because they've heard the organized public fuss, and haven't thought it through.

I have a hard time not leapin to the conclusion that they know this voter fraud thing is a bunch of crap and they just wanted the optics of Mexicans getting arrested for trying to vote. Inflame the conservatives, scare the liberals into staying home or risking jail themselves. But then again, these guys have proven to be very susceptible to their own bullshit, so maybe they really do believe that there's a secret pact among Democrats to vote for their dead relatives, and that if the prosecutor is not catching these people it's because he's not trying. Sufficiently advanced stupidity is not distinguishable from mendacity.

Not just the optics of Mexicans getting arested for trying to vote, but also maintaining in people's eyes the antiquated idea that Boss Tweed and the rest of the Democrats are the REAL corrupt ones.

This idea seems to me to be about as relevant to current politics as the idea that Barack Obama is not fit for the presidency because of his chronic drapetomania, but it seems to still possess some people.

The chairman of the county Republican Party personally filed a challenge (I am nearly certain that it was illegal) against my ballot in 2006. (I voted in one of the most competitive districts). It became a provisional, but was eventually counted. I tried to get some attention paid to it, and a journalist did talk to me but never printed anything. The state CLU also never got back to me.

It seems very necessary to start striking back against these things now, before they become ingrained. It also seems that Republicans are the only ones paying attention and Democrats still have so much faith in the voting system that they don't want to do anything about it.

How can we do that, though? In my particular case, the aforementioned chairman managed to get an emergency special prosecutor appointed to look into the matter that caused him to challenge my vote. The prosecutor found nothing but his appointment was for a year. I toyed with the thought of trying to get him to prosecute the chairman for fraudulent challenges, but I have no idea how to do that.

Huh. What were his stated grounds for the challenge? Was it one of those "You didn't sign for your registered letter, you must not live at this address" routines, or something else?

Best line:

Firing a prosecutor for failing to find wide voter fraud is like firing a park ranger for failing to find Sasquatch.

No, it's a bit more complicated than that. I hope this story is not too boring. I live abroad, so I was disheartened when my ballot didn't arrive until a week before election day. The mail takes 9+ days to get to the US, so I thought I was screwed. (Incidentally, state law says that overseas absentee ballots must be mailed about 2 months before the postmark on my envelope, but I couldn't get in touch with anybody who cared about that either.)

I called the county election board and talked to the same woman who mailed out the ballots. She was quite pleased to hear from me since she knew that they were going to arrive too late to vote when she sent them out, and she was glad that I was going to get to vote. She explained that I could submit my ballot by fax, and faxed me the necessary forms, one of which required that I waive my right to ballot secrecy. (She also mentioned that she had wanted to include the fax instructions in the envelopes, but had not been allowed to do so.)

So I faxed in the ballot. While following the local news back home on election day, I saw an item saying that the chairman of the Republican party was alleging voter fraud and had challenged 16 overseas absentee ballots. Sure enough, this was every ballot that had been faxed in. His story was that the election worker who copied the fax ballots onto machine-readable cards was taking too long and must be altering the results (why this would take longer than copying accurately was never explained), and that additionally she was a Democrat and had some keys that she shouldn't have. I'm pretty sure it was the woman I talked to on the phone. The party chairman called the FBI, the state police, and the state prosecutor, and filled out individual ballot challenge forms for each of the 16 overseas absentee ballots.

Here's the illegal part. The challenge form, which is a sworn statement under penalty of perjury, clearly lists the possible reasons for challenging an individual's ballot, and the ballot being counted out of the sight of election observers was absolutely not on the list. The only things on the list were variations on "I have reason to believe that this voter's registration is fraudulent." So basically, he made a sworn statement that he didn't believe was true solely in order to stop my ballot from being counted.

As I said, they decided to count the ballots at the election board meeting the next week -- I sent a proxy to argue my case but he was dismissed. The prosecutor questioned the woman who was accused and determined she did nothing wrong. The Democrat won the district by a safe margin, and everything was forgotten.

I happen to know that the county Republican party also did mass objections via the registered letter technique, and tried to sue in court to prevent every absentee ballot from being counted. Furthermore, this is one of those states with an extremely restrictive ID card law, which was passed in the same year that half of the DMV branches were arbitrarily shut down, which I don't believe can be a coincidence. The opposition to this law, both in the legislature and through the courts, was totally ineffectual -- the state CLU, arguing before the state Supreme Court, said that they couldn't find a single eligible voter who was disenfranchised by the law, even though a friend of mine was one of them and he had tried to get in touch with them. It's just totally disheartening, and a picture of how the Republican vote suppression machine functions unchallenged at several different levels.

Most of the cited incidents of dead voters, dual registrations, cartoon characters etc. were not people trying to vote but people getting paid on commission doing false registrations to pad their paychecks. The fraud was perpetuated against the sponsoring organizations and no one ever showed up to vote the false registrations. Hence, the US Attorneys found little or no actual Election Fraud.

But then that doesn't feed the GOP talking point, does it?

neil, I like the reworking of the tech,magic quotation.

Especially crazy considering how only half of people bother to vote even once.

Cryptic Ned, I heart you. How had I come this far in life without ever having heard of "drapetomania"?

4 - And Rove has specifically used this as a campaign tactic (not in 2000, when I think he left it alone, but in a GA Supreme Court race). You get the idea circulating that your opponent cheated, and then you work like hell to get your opponent's absentee ballots disqualified. That seems to have been the idea in Washington State, where the Dem governor was losing until the absentee ballots were (re)counted.

If so many people know it's an established tactic, why the hell is there no pushback?

Well, the linked Op-Ed is pushback. Not so much this blog post, given that we haven't got a heck of a lot of readership, but TPM and Sausagely's links to it are pushback. It's not loud enough, but there's some.

I'm talking more about local stories like my own, where the county Republican apparatus uses a multi-pronged attack including abuse and fraud up and down the line, while the Democratic apparatus sits around with its thumb up its ass, hoping it can win by a large enough fraction of a percent that it didn't have to whip out its lawyers.

My district is one of the top 10 targets for 2008, so I can be sure they're going to try to block my vote again. Why not? They know they can get away with it. They know they won't get in trouble.

neil, that story is not at all boring. That story is fascinating and disturbing. I've always heard and known that intimidation and fraudulent challenge tactics are used but I've never known someone on whom they were used in such a direct way. Can you tell us more about the reporter who didn't write anything? Not identity or anything like that, what I'm really curious about is their level of publication - small town paper vs. national magazine, etc. Does that worker still work for your elections board? Do you think a local publication would be interested in at least a letter to the editor or a guest column by you or is this a non-issue in the local media? It seems like in a district that hotly contested there would be some publication - an independent weekly or something - that would eat up a chance to go after the local ham-fisted big-wig for that sort of thing. I'm not saying you didn't try, it's just surprising to me that nothing came of it. Apparently I'm one of those Democrats with the thumb up his ass, but out of naive ignorance more than anything else.

16: Come to think of it, you should really write that story up in Op-Ed format, wait for some kind of news hook, and send it in to your local paper.

Committing voter fraud on the individual level, on the other hand, is motiveless: if you're not legally entitled to vote, and you do, what do you get for it? An infinitesimal effect on how the election might come out? I'm sure it happens occasionally, but in an unsystematic way that's dwarfed by the amount of random error in the vote -- large numbers of people don't commit a crime if there's nothing in it for them.

There are some reasonable (although not necessarily convincing to me) arguments that can be made against more vigorous voter fraud enforcement, but this argument makes little sense. By your logic, you should never vote, because your vote only has "an infinitesimal effect" on the outcome--better to stay home and crochet. But of course you do not believe that, you take the time and trouble to vote.

Voter fraud, like many things, seems to be one of those things that has become mythified by the debate. While not going so far as to insist that it never happens, you try to wish it away, and certainly pretend that it is never organized or intentional beyond a few bad apples. I do not believe the facts bear that contention out, any more than they bear out the argument (I would call it a strawman, except you probably can find someone who has said it on the
Internet) that voter fraud is endemic and has a significant effect on the outcome of elections.

The truth is, it does happen, and sometimes in an organized way. I was a poll watcher in a city election in law school, and I certainly found and heard about stuff--there already being votes on machines (which can happen by accident) but the votes were always for the Democrat and the election officials did nothing about it. A Democratic poll worker in a heavinly Republican precient who slowed down the checkin process, causing delays that made voters give up and leave, Democratic party workers illegally displaying campaign material at a polling place. Indeed, when I tried to check one voting machine, the inspector refused, started screaming at me, and when I left to find a pay phone to report it, cursed at me and told me that white Republicans like me had no right to come look at her machine.

Now, since the lesser includes the greater, and it has been opined above and not infrequently in other threads, that anyone who cares about voter fraud really just hates minorities and wants to disenfranchise them, I suppose you have no reason to believe any of this. But, like the modern-day insistence that no war protester ever spit on a returning Vietnam veteran, the myth of no organized voter fraud is just that, a myth.

The truth is, it does happen, and sometimes in an organized way. I was a poll watcher in a city election in law school, and I certainly found and heard about stuff--there already being votes on machines (which can happen by accident) but the votes were always for the Democrat and the election officials did nothing about it.

You've told this story before, and I've never really understood why you didn't call the police. (I'm not sure that I've ever gotten the story quite straight -- that is, I worked as a poll watcher in 1992, and was told that it's not uncommon for machines not to be zeroed out properly, and the procedure was to note beginning totals and ending totals, and record the difference at the end of the night. Is that all you're talking about? Or are you saying that you saw voting machines come in with say, five votes for the Democrat, and that at the end of the day the totals were recorded as if those five votes had been cast?)

I guess what I'm saying is that what keeps large scale fraud from happening is among other things, that poll observers like yourself would notice. You say that you did, so why did it stop there?

"The only people who actually benefit from voter fraud are candidates and their backers, and they only benefit from large scale, organized fraud. ..."

I don't think this is accurate. Suppose some distinct group (such as felons, aliens, students) which is ineligible to vote nevertheless does vote in significant numbers and tends to favor one party. Then that party benefits from lax enforcement of the regulation barring that group whereas the other party benefits from draconian enforcement.

Idealist: I think the problem is different. There is no reason to think that voter fraud has been practiced more by D's than R's, and plenty of evidence that both have done it at various times and places.

On the other hand, I suspect that `voter fraud' has for some people at least become a coding, like `welfare moms' for something quite different than what it appears on the surface. The claim is that some people are attempting to disenfranchise certain demographics under the cover of `voter fraud'. There certainly seems to be some evidence of this, but I don't know how well supported or widespread it is.

There is mythology of all types around this, just as in your examples.....which are so clear cut either. At least the reporting of the idea that vietnam vets were regularly spat upon by war protesters is fairly newnew one, so seems at least as implausible as the idea that not a single one did (who claims that, anyway?).

And further:

By your logic, you should never vote, because your vote only has "an infinitesimal effect" on the outcome--better to stay home and crochet. But of course you do not believe that, you take the time and trouble to vote.

Yep. I do take that time and trouble. Wouldn't risk arrest or imprisonment for it. The infinitesimal effect on the outcome is sufficent incentive to spend twenty minutes voting, but not enough to break the law. I think my ranking of priorities is pretty common, here.

I've never really understood why you didn't call the police.

I reported it to the party, who (as I understand it) reported it to the Board of Elections.

was told that it's not uncommon for machines not to be zeroed out properly, and the procedure was to note beginning totals and ending totals, and record the difference at the end of the night. Is that all you're talking about?

I am an election inspector (that is, I help run a polling place) in the county where I live, and we have been told--and my (only modest--four elections) experience has showed that it is possible, but rare, that the counters to get moved when machines are bumped around when they are being delivered. The chances of it happening to several machines seem small, and of it always being favor of a Democrat even smaller--but it could happen. However, when it happens, it is supposed to be recorded on the official record of the vote that goes to the Board of Elections when the machine is set up in the morning. This was not done on the machines I saw.

Suppose some distinct group (such as felons, aliens, students) which is ineligible to vote nevertheless does vote in significant numbers and tends to favor one party.

The flaw in this argument is in the assumption that some such group does vote in significant numbers (why students, btw? Surely they have the vote?). We've got voting protocols intended to screen people not entitled to vote out, and it is against the law -- for a group not entitled to vote to be voting in significant numbers assumes that they're motivated enough to risk criminal liability, despite getting no material reward for it. This isn't impossible, but it's certainly not likely.

20

Some people would be intimidated in such situations and would let stuff go. This factor may also make it hard to find enough poll watchers.

As for the machines not being zeroed properly that sounds very shady to me especially if the votes are always on one side. Some poll workers are going to neglect to check even if they are honest.

24: So, it got reported to the Republican Party and the Board of Elections, which suggests to me that if if the total complaints were anywhere near the magnitude necessary to affect the outcome of an election, further investigation would have happened. (Or for all you know did happen.)

I'm not making the claim that no one ever tries to commit voter fraud. My claim was that (1) individual, voter-by-voter, fraud doesn't happen at any important level because there's no motive for it, and (2) organized fraud at the precinct by precinct level is conspicuous, and so easily controlled. What you said is that you saw and participated in controlling attempts to commit voter-fraud at the precinct-by-precinct level, which is, you know, pretty compatible with what I said.

At least the reporting of the idea that vietnam vets were regularly spat upon by war protesters is fairly newnew one

No, I had heard of it when the war was going on and when I joined the Army in 74 heard of it from people to whom it happened.

, so seems at least as implausible as the idea that not a single one did (who claims that, anyway?)

Regular commenters here--any many others--have insisted that it never happened. Indeed, at another site, I read a reqular commenter here make the claim that it never happened, causing people to chime in that it happened to them, generating the response that that was no evidence--and thus telling the commenters who said it had happened to them liars--because (well, just like me, I suppoese) they were just people on the Internet.

But this has turned into an unpleasant discussion before, so I'll drop it.

As for the machines not being zeroed properly that sounds very shady to me especially if the votes are always on one side.

Sure, but (sorry Ideal) what's your basis for the 'always on one side' bit? I let it go when Ideal said it, but obviously he doesn't know that to be the case on any level other than gossip.

Did you read the Jack Shafer Vietnam Vet/spit debunking article?

Please, can we not argue about spat-upon Vietnam vets? (And Ideal, given that it's a touchy subject for you, could you maybe work on not bringing it up when not directly relevant?)

Regular commenters here--any many others--have insisted that it never happened.

I didn't read that thread well, but I think a lot of it isn't necessarily that it's impossible it happened, it's just that people who have actually tried to document first hand cases have had a hell of a time doing so.

But I think there's a fair of voter fraud follows this pattern, in that the rumor is much greater than the reality.

25

In many cases the voter will be unaware they are voting illegally. And I have never heard of a voter with a plausible good faith excuse being prosecuted. There was some fuss about Ann Coulter allegedly voting illegally recently but she was not prosecuted.

As for students many college towns are (or were) unenthusiastic about students swinging local elections and try to exclude them in various ways. As I student I always voted by absentee ballot in my home town.

if if the total complaints were anywhere near the magnitude necessary to affect the outcome of an election, further investigation would have happened.

This likely is just what happened. It did not appear to affect the outcome, so there was no reason to raise a fuss about it. And this is one argument against spending assets on voter fraud enforcement.

It is not a very convincing one to me. If you took this approach as a matter of general principle, I would think that you would agree that there similarly was no reason to care about eligible voters who were not allowed to vote, as long as in aggregate, the number of disenfranchised voters was not large enough to affect the outcome of the election. The problem--in both cases--if that you do not know ex ante whether it will make a difference. Moreover, as a matter of principle, people should not be denied their right to vote--but neither should their legal vote be nullified by a fraudulent one, which is what happens with voter fraud. Ande based on the principle, voter fraud is something I think we should care about.

All this being said, if you were to say that the effects of voter fraud have been overemphasized for political purposes, and that we really do not need to expend massive resourses to fight what is not a huge problem, I would agree. But at the same time, I think the attempt to minimize the extent and effect of voter fraud ifor political purposes is equally misguided, and it is something that is worth taking steps to prevent.

what's your basis for the 'always on one side' bit?

The basis for that "bit" is that is what I saw. But, of course, that is not reason for you to believe it.

35

What was the sample size?

What was the sample size?

This is ove 10 years ago, but my best guess is that I checked 30 machines that day and saw two or three that already had votes for Democrats on them (but really, the relevant number is not the total number of machines I saw, but the total I say before voting started was less than 20 (once voting started, there was no way to tell if there already were votes on the machine without going through the voter sign-in books)

Sorry to have misunderstood you. If you're just talking about what you saw personally, while of course I believe you, the n is too small to mean anything sinister. I thought you were making a larger claim about voting machines in NY in general, which would have been gossip.

I don't think we need to deny the actuality of some voting fraud to make our case. The Republicans are working on a multi-pronged voter-discouragement plan. Whatever voter fraud there is is used as a justification for various sorts of "anti-fraud" measures which serve to reduce voting by Democrats -- in Georgia they actually reinstituted a kind of poll tax. (Along with this there are often illegal and unethical attempts at voter discouragement, as well as neutral ones such as making registration and vioting inconvenient). Volunteers aggressively look for fraud in areas of Democratic strength (Teh Minorities!) while ignoring Republican areas, and noise about fraud (including fraudulent accusations of fraud) are used as part of any effort to discredit Democratic winners and overturn close elections won by Democrats. (The Republican Gore-Bush 2000 Florida effort shows how many weapons they have in their arsenal; fraud accusations were a small part of that one, since it is a Republican controlled state).

Many Republicans (e.g. George Will, who has been explicit about it) accept neither "one man one vote" nor universal adult franchise -- Will would be happy to see a poll tax or a literacy test. For them, voter discouragement is a good thing, and they are very open-minded about methods of getting the job done.

If you took this approach as a matter of general principle, I would think that you would agree that there similarly was no reason to care about eligible voters who were not allowed to vote, as long as in aggregate, the number of disenfranchised voters was not large enough to affect the outcome of the election.

In small enough numbers, I would agree -- vote for vote, you're perfectly right that a fraudulent vote is as significant as a valid vote denied. The reason that I think disenfranchisement is a bigger worry than fraud is that it's easier to discourage voters or prevent them from voting en masse than it is to commit massive fraud.

I wish someone would offer me a Christmas Turkey for my vote. :(

Eh, you'd have to be living in a turn of the century cold water railroad flat with six children. The turkey wouldn't be worth it.

Would the children be mine, or would I have to take in random urchins?

28: Certainly we can drop it. I referred only to the reporting --- which didn't exist in any significant amount. I've heard conflicting personal reports about it. I certainly won't question what you yourself experienced; but that doesn't help us with generalization.

I think one of the reasons for the Republican "misunderstanding" of voter fraud is that crying about it gives them opportunities to evoke the legendary abuses of the now-mostly-extinct Democratic machines. The image of corrupt Democratic pols holding on to their power by cheating the regular guy nicely feeds the sense of victimhood that's such an important part of the Republican brand.

These people project like a mf.