An Actual Case of Voter Fraud

[dwer.livejournal.com]

No, no, I'm not talking about Mitt -- not yet, anyway.



This woman is is Wendy Rosen, who was the Democratic challenger for a congressional seat in Maryland currently held by Republican Andy Harris. Mary voted allegedly voted in both Florida and Maryland twice, in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bs-md-wendy-rosen-withdraws-20120910,0,3764352.story

So, hey, voter fraud. I mean, VOTER FRAUD!!!!!!!!

Here's the thing. Voter rolls are administered by the states. And, indeed, some states allow land-owners who primarily reside in other states to vote in their local elections, which would explain how Rosen could legally be on the voter rolls in two states -- she just wouldn't be allowed to vote in both states for certain races.

It's likely (although Rosen isn't talking) that she voted in one or the other of these states with an absentee ballot -- after all, the two cities are 970 miles apart.

Rosen has resigned from the race, and is facing criminal charges, and rightfully so. If convicted, she'll be in history and law textbooks as an actual perpetrator of voter fraud, which, as we all know, are few and far between.

But you all know where I'm going with this. How would a picture ID have prevented one of the few legitimate, discovered cases of voter fraud?

The answer: It wouldn't have. Even if Rosen voted in Baltimore at 9 am and then hopped a plane to St. Petersburg and voted there four or five hours later, what would have stuck out to indicate that she was engaged in actual voter fraud? Her picture ID is a legitimate one. She owns property in both locations.

No, the only thing that might have prevented this would be one of the things that most of the people who argue for voter ID laws the most abhor...

A Federal database, containing a list of every american citizen with the right to vote and some sort of identifying indicator. Given that such a thing is tantamount to treason when applied to gun registration, why is it ok to do for voting?

Now, about Mitt's... election indiscretion...

Comments

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

The _major_ concern in voter fraud discussions is, as far as I remember, not the US citizens voting twice (which is a crime, too) but the voting noncitizens: permanent residents, illegal immigrants etc.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

Look! They got one!

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-election/canadian-the-only-illegal-alien-caught-in-us-fake-voter-dragnet/article4531032/

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

... an actual perpetrator of voter fraud, which, as we all know, are few and far between.

How do we know this? The fact that very few have been caught does not imply that there were very few to begin with.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Seriously. It's like saying there's no pesticide in the river even though you've never actually checked, and that one fish you see floating there on the surface is just coincidence and totally unrelated.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

And nobody speeds on country roads.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

And no invisible unicorns or teapots orbiting saturn!

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

Does not checking for something lend any credence to something existing? You seem to imply that it does. I recommend you get quarterly prostate checkups, better safe than sorry!

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

If after all that flailing the GOP can't identify actual instances of voter fraud then perhaps that's a sign that it really is rare. I know, I know, Occam's Razor doesn't exist in Republican politics, Cobra Command and the Legion of Doom are much more rational answers to everything.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

How would one identify it?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

We know this because there have been investigations done. They couldn't find ANY examples in PA. They found ONE guy in FL.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

They checked the ID of everyone who voted in PA? Five percent of the voters? Point 01 percent of the voters? Seriously, how hard did they look? I'll be happy to read a link.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

How does one prove a negative assertion?

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

That question is for the OP.

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

What's funny about this is that even when a preponderance of evidence on a topic is given (climate change, economic stimulus, etc.), conservatives claim that epistemological knowledge on the given topic is still impossible. That raises the question though, what exactly are you trying to do here?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

they only want evidence for the issues that support their goals.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Climate change? Could you add abortion and gay rights too?

[kayjayuu.livejournal.com]

If you are a resident in one state, you have your driver's license or state ID for that state. If you own property in another state, you don't have a driver's license or state ID for that state too.

You vote in the state you have your residency.

Your kids can't go to several different colleges with in-state tuition simply because you own property across the line, either.

[vitsli.livejournal.com]

>>If you are a resident in one state, you have your driver's license or state ID for that state

You may, but you don't have to.

>> If you own property in another state, you don't have a driver's license or state ID for that state too.

Why not?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

You vote in the state you have your residency.

Except, of course, the article that I link to specifically says that this is not completely accurate.

[rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com]

Your kids can't go to several different colleges with in-state tuition simply because you own property across the line, either.

Where parents reside has nothing to do with student in state tuition.

[oportet.livejournal.com]

Voter fraud seems like too much trouble from an individual standpoint.

I'll be disgusted enough with myself after putting a checkmark next to either of these guys just once, no need to double or triple it.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

I agree. If you were looking at it economically it would be much less effort per result to pack courthouses or hire companies who support you to make the voting machines.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

If you own property in two states, why shouldn't you be allowed to vote in both state elections? You shouldn't be allowed to vote twice for federal candidates, but ofter there are state initiatives mixed in with federal ballots.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

If you own property in two states, why shouldn't you be allowed to vote in both state elections?

Wait, so more voting rights for property owners than for lowly renters? I think the person votes, not the property.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

There was recently a post along these lines in another community, specfically addressing dead folks still on voter rolls. Of course, the actual post was ranting against the injustice of tens of thousands of fradulent votes, which never happened, because dead people remaining on voter rolls is not the same thing as someone actually voting in their place.

Thing is, like you say, there's just no evidence of this going on to any extent that's large enough to justify the cost of voter ID laws in terms of voter disenfranchisement.

But hell, we can talk about making voting more secure, dealing with the fact of dead people still registered, etc. ( I understand why dead folks remain on rolls; we play it safe and don't remove unless 100% sure, and let them fall off for inactivity in a few years, so we can avoid FURTHER disenfranchisment of people!) But yea, maybe we can clean up that system, with our modern technology. And hell, maybe we can even start demanding IDs at the polls. But the folks crying about "fraud" need to understand that they can't have it both ways. Like you said, there's implications there. Federal databases. Dealing with the constitutional questions of a "poll tax", meaning state funding for IDs. Making the process of GETTING the ID easier so that it's not an undue burden to those least able to afford the time off to go get the damn things, which means more state funding to make that happen.

But if certain folks are actually serious about instituting a solution to a problem that hasn't yet been established as even existing, then they should be fine with all of those things. We've got a perfect solution for all the fraud-worriers, and they don't even have to worry about violating the 24th amendment to that Constitution they love so much. Except for that whole "needing a national database" part. Which they apparently think is unconstitutional. Sometimes. Except when it isn't. But there you go. THIS ONE IS FREE. You're welcome, everyone!

Of course, I don't actually think that the demand for IDs when voting has anything to do with combatting fraud...