Thursday, December 15, 2011

No fraud if you won't look

Nice column by the indispensable Christian Schneider on National Review's Corner. I have often written about or told the story of one polling place in Milwaukee on election day in 2004. At one point, there were eight lawyers at the Washington Park Library. We had two GOP lawyers, two Democrats, three from various Democratic front organizations and an assistant district attorney. It was a legal dream team. Some of the people there were rather high end. I guess it's cost between $ 3000-3500/hr.

There could have been rampant fraud taking place two feet from us and we would have no way of knowing. As Christian points out, there are plenty of indicia that something has happened - people registered from commericial and noncommericial addresses, huge numbers registered from shelters or places that could not accomodate the number of registrants.

These could be clerical errors. In the case of shelters, there could be a large number of voters. Or it could be indicia of fraud. I have always said that there is probably not wholesale fraud, but there may be enough to make a difference in close elections. That, in my view, justifies the same type of reasonable steps that we use to ensure the integrity of other processes.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

And it's in the close elections -- which are usually the most bitterly fought -- where it's especially critical that the public have confidence in the integrity of the electoral system, so that the outcomes are widely and peacefully accepted. Otherwise, democracy won't work so well.

John Foust said...

Now I know you're just baiting. How could you miss Mr. Atomic Pantsload's analogy between unreported rape and undetectable vote fraud? Is this not yet another indicia that his logic is always a bit tough to follow?

There could be fraud! Right here, I say, trouble right here in River City! Let's assumethat there are 5,000 people who vote an average of 25 times. That sounds like a lot of fraud! And it's right here, on this blog! And we'd never know it!

Undetectable fraud is always the hardest to find, it's the sneakiest kind! You know, like how the Republicans were deeply concerned about the possibility of fraud in those Diebold voting machines.

Mazo Jeff said...

Rick! Are you going to comment in the arrest and detention of Andrew Jensen. I don't understand how this can happen. You are compelled to testify?? Jailed if you refused?? what ever happened to "taking the Fifth"?? This case is about a woman who blogged and responded to blogs as a county employee on the clock??
What is Eliot Spitzer, er, I mean John Chisum doing??

Tom said...

"The MPD report found instances of double-voting, unopened absentee ballots appearing after the election, and deceased people voting."

And your response to that, Mr. Foust?

Let me guess - "But there wasn't a conviction!"

John Foust said...

No, Tom - how about "Who authored that report, and on whose direction?"

Shine the light, baby. If you have evidence, if they have evidence, bring it out and examine it. We all want a clean, fair process. These conspiracy theories don't fly with me. There are plenty of schisms within both parties. Anyone concerned about fraud should be concerned as much about fraud within the party they support, because the injustice cuts us all. If there is indeed fraud, and you're not part of it, then it still works against you.

It's like you're arguing for UFOs-must-be-aliens. There's no evidence that'll stick to a tree long enough to examine it. In the case of vote fraud, I have no doubt that when millions vote, there will be a very, very small number of errors and outright fraud.

We need to examine the fraud we can document. If we think the process is flawed, we can correct it. We don't need to go overboard, especially if the changes could discourage voting or disenfranchise voters from any party.

Tom said...

John, based on your very first sentence in your latest post, I can tell it doesn't matter how much fraud we find (you're already ignoring the fraud we pointed out in the Milwaukee report), because you'll disregard it based on who found it or reported it.

John Foust said...

Tom, you're being obtuse and evasive. The rest of my comment was very clear that I, like so many others, do not want any level of fraud in our election or recall processes.

So where'd that report come from? It's impolite to ask?

Tom said...

I'm being evasive? I answered your question before you asked it.

John Foust said...

I don't see it, Tom. I'll ask again. "Who authored that MPD report, and on whose direction?"

John Foust said...

Whoops, McGyver gets a "mostly false". You know, because "accepted" means "received from circulators" and they weren't trying to mislead the public.