Nearly all informed political observers would say yes. In his book on vote fraud, John Fund is apologetic about mentioning that, because he wants to make a general argument. Here's how he begins the discussion:
A note about partisanship: Since Democrats figure prominently in the vast majority of examples of election fraud described in this book, some readers will jump to the conclusion that this is a one-sided attack on a single party. I do not believe Republicans are inherently more virtuous or honest than anyone else in politics, and I myself often vote Libertarian or independent.
He then notes that Republicans have had less chance to commit vote fraud because they controlled fewer "local and administrative offices". (Though Republicans have, as recently as the 1980s, sometimes used intimidation tactics that are certainly unethical, though perhaps not illegal.) Fund then makes a more general argument:
In their book, Dirty Little Secrets, Larry Sabato and co-author Glenn Simpson of the Wall Street Journal noted another factor in why Republican election fraud is less common. Republican base voters are middle-class and not easily induced to commit fraud, while "the pool of people who appear to be available and more vulnerable to an invitation to participate in vote fraud tend to lean Democratic." Some liberal activists that Sabato and Simpson interviewed even partly justified fraudulent electoral behavior on the grounds that because the poor and dispossessed have so little political clout, "extraordinary measures (for example, stretching the absentee ballot or registration rules) are required to compensate." Paul Herrnson, director of the Center for American Politics at the University of Maryland, agrees that "most incidents of wide-scale vote fraud reportedly occur in inner cities, which are largely populated by minority groups."
Democrats are far more skilled at encouraging poor people — who need money — to participate in shady vote-buying schemes. "I had no choice. I was hungry that day," Thomas Felder told the Miami Herald in explaining why he illegally voted in the Suarez-Carollo mayoral election. "You wanted money, you were told who to vote for." A former Democratic congressman gave me this explanation of why voting irregularities more often crop up in his party's back yard. "When many Republicans lose an election, they go back into what they call the private sector. When many Democrats lose an election, they lose power and money. They need to eat, and people will do an awful lot in order to eat."
(Sabato is a Democrat; I don't know about Simpson or Herrnson.)
So Democrats are more likely to commit vote fraud because more of their adherents are poor enough to be bribable, because some activists will cross the line to help the poor, and because many Democratic politicians have no good alternative to public office.
These points are, as I said at the beginning, not something most informed observers would quarrel with. But I think, before going farther, that I should make it clear how far my argument goes. That more Democrats commit vote fraud than Republicans does not mean that most Democrats commit vote fraud. I am sure that very few Democrats commit vote fraud in fact — but even fewer Republicans.
Some readers will prefer direct evidence to the conclusions of experts, however well informed. I have that, too. I do not know of a single major Republican vote fraud scandal in the last ten years. But it is easy to find major Democratic scandals in such cities as Baltimore, Philadelphia, New Orleans, Milwaukee, and New Orleans. You may recall one example from Milwaukee; in 2000, a Democratic socialite was caught exchanging cigarettes for the votes of the homeless. (She's still an honored member of the Democratic party, by the way.)
(The 1998 Miami vote fraud scandal during the mayoralty race between Xavier Suarez and Joe Carollo is hard to classify by party. Carrollo is and was a Republican. At that time Suarez, who received many fraudulent votes, was an independent, though he has belonged to both parties.)
Democrats are the guilty in most of the smaller vote scandals, too. I have started collecting these as they are reported. Here are examples of vote fraud, or charges of vote fraud in San Francisco, East Chicago, Passaic, New Jersey, Orlando, Florida, South Dakota, New York and Florida, Cleveland, Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio, and Pennsylvania., Nevada, New Mexico, Orange County, California, and Kentucky. Of these cases, only the Nevada case was purely Republican. (A former employee of a Republican firm charged that some Democratic registrations collected by the firm had been discarded. I don't know whether the case has gone to trial.) The Kentucky case appears to have been bipartisan, though I did not make that clear in my post.
When vote fraud is detected, those caught are nearly always Democrats. Either Democrats are much less skillful at fraud, which seems implausible to me, or they commit far more of it, just as the experts say.
Some Democratic leaders have tolerated vote fraud fairly openly, including Bill Clinton, when he was governor of Arkansas. (Some believe that the rush by the Clinton administration to get new citizens in 2000 was part of an effort to stuff the ballot box, something I did not mention in the post. It was certainly true that, under pressure for Clinton and Al Gore, the INS skipped many checks on would-be citizens in 2000.)
Finally, Democratic leaders behave as if they believe more Democrats commit vote fraud. Nearly always, when the two parties split on election rules, the Republicans want more checks on fraud and the Democrats want fewer. The infamous 1993 "Motor Voter" Act, which did so much to make fraud easier was opposed almost entirely by Republicans and had been vetoed by the first President Bush. I don't say that all supporters of the legislation (including Washington's Maria Cantwell) even knew that it would make vote fraud easier, but some of them did. Like the anonymous liberal activists, they see some fraud as a reasonable price for getting more representation for the victim groups they identify with.
It is telling, I think, that there is one group, military voters, for whom Democrats tend to prefer tougher rules and the Republicans easier rules. Military voters generally back Republicans, at least in recent years. That Democratic leaders prefer rules that make cheating easier (for everyone except military voters) is understandable if they think they gain from the cheating, but hard to explain otherwise.
(This is the promised follow-up to an earlier post outlining distributed vote fraud. In that earlier post, I left for another time this explanation for my belief that Democrats are more likely to commit vote fraud.)
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
Posted by Jim Miller at January 12, 2005
12:59 PM | Email This
And you must have a really short memory for Republican fraud, or just blinders. Larry Russell resigned from his position supporting GOTV for the GOP in South Dakota for registration irregularities, then he and his team were promptly moved to Ohio for the general election. Thune's nephew got into trouble for handling absentees and falsely claiming he was a notary. Jim Tobin, the head of BC04 New England, was indicted on voter fraud for suppression activities in 2002, for which two men have been convicted, naming Tobin as the ringleader. Nathan Sproul is in all kinds of trouble for running a front registration outfit for the GOP, misrepresenting his affiliations and destroying registration forms.
Posted by: torridjoe on January 12, 2005 01:23 PMBack in Sept. or so I googled "voter fraud" and noted the first 40 hits I got. By a large margin, many more of the stories were about fraud allegedly committed by Democrats.
I never did see any mainstream press picking up on that pattern.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 12, 2005 01:42 PMsnicker.....
Pssst......someone needs to tell torridjoe that he's in the wrong blog..and he should look for a *like-minded* forum... Somewhere out there - there is a liberal blog wasting away without his er...valuable input....
We the people of the State of Washington, being throughly disgusted with the conduct of the 2004 Governor's Election, do hereby set forth the following voter referendum:
1) That all voters shall be required to show picture identification in order to register to vote. In the case of an individual who desires to register and who does not have a picture ID, that individual shall be required to demonstrate legal standing as a resident of the State of Washington and shall be required to submit and register a copy of their fingerprints prior to being added as a registered voter in the state.
2) That all voters shall be required produce either a picture identification or will attach a valid thumbprint to their ballot upon casting a vote. In the case of absentee ballots, a photocopy of a picture ID conforming to election board standards or a notarized certification of the voter's signature shall be included with the absentee ballot. If this identification is not included, the ballot shall be invalid and may not be counted for any reason.
3) That any person convicted of any of the following acts shall be considered to have committed an act of treason against the people of the State of Washington and shall be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The courts shall have no discretion to reduce this sentence: (a) Voting more than once in a given election; (b) Voting or attempting to vote using the registration of a deceased person or using the registration of any person other than the voter himself (c) making false statements in order to register to vote (d) falsifying or tampering with election results.
4) That each county be required to reconcile the number of votes to the number of voters within 60 days after the election. If, after 60 days, this number remains unreconciled beyond the below listed tolerances, the following remedies will apply: (a) Votes reconciled to within less than 2/10 of 1% of the number of voters - no action (b) Unreconciled votes to voters from 2/10 of 1% to less than 1/2 of 1% - a special investigation of the errors shall be made by the State Attorney General with a report to the public made within 120 days after the election (c) unreconciled votes to voters of 1/2 of 1% or more - all paid County elections officials shall immediately be terminated for gross negligence. Said terminated employees shall be ineligible for any State or State Agency job for a period of five years. Accepting a job with the State or with a State Agency in violation of this clause shall result in a prison term of not less than 10 years.
5) That Counties shall be required to mail Military Absentee Ballots not later than 60 days prior to any election. If the Military Absentee Ballots have not been mailed out prior to this deadline, for any reason whatsoever, the offending county shall be fined $1,000 per late ballot with the funds used to offset the elections costs of all Washington State counties in compliance with this provision in proportion to the number of votes cast.
Posted by: Vince on January 12, 2005 01:48 PMI'm definitely in the right blog, if I want to find out what new spurious, poorly sourced and flatly contradicted charges are next to come out of the revote media exercise.
How unfortunate for you that a diversity of opinion causes you such angst. Since I co-write a blog with a Christian conservative, I'm not similarly cursed by fear of debate. I welcome it.
Posted by: torridjoe on January 12, 2005 01:51 PM"Are Democrats More Likely To Commit Vote Fraud Than Republicans? Nearly all informed political observers would say yes."
Hmmm. Aren't the Republicans trying to say (in this current election fiasco) that approximately half is not "nearly all?" Of course, if you define "informed" as "Republican" then you've got a point.
Still, I get frustrated when my party defines "fair" as meaning "Democrat" (which they do with annoying frequency) so maybe this is just one of those "turn about is fair play" situations.
Posted by: John Barelli on January 12, 2005 01:58 PMAn opposite point of view that is well presented and based in fact is both welcome and valued.
Oh yeah, while I'm at it: FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD....
Not needed to be proven to contest the election.
But it does make for some good spin.
My point of view is entirely based on factual material--the RCW statutes, and state case law. Smoke, is that only for opposite points of view, or are the predominant views also subject to that scrutiny?
You'll note I've agreed repeatedly that fraud is not necessary to contest. However, it is just as clear that it IS necessary to set aside an election. The only alternative is to produce illegal votes in number that can be attributed to a candidate, such that taking them away changes the result. So far, Rossi has neither.
When I worked (for the DNC) doing voter registration on campus I was told to tell students that they could fill out two absentee ballot requests; one at school and one for their home address if it is in a different county or state because there is no cross checking.
I said we wouldn't want them doing that to us would we? The reply was, "They do this a hundred times over in corporate board rooms."
I left the party shortly thereafter...
Posted by: Baynative on January 12, 2005 02:12 PMOne of the apologists of this WA election referred to the voterless ballots as "overenfranchisement."
This supports your point. Someone who would use such weasel wording isn't really committed to the "one voter, one vote" rule.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 12, 2005 02:19 PMAs for the purpose behind the post, you can find that in the previous post. I have been arguing for years that fraudulent votes give Democrats a small edge in elections -- even in states as clean as Washington. Check the post for "distributed vote fraud" if you need an explanation for the mechanism.
A key part of that argument is that Democrats are more likely to commit vote fraud than Republicans. Since we appear to agree on that, you may want to look at the rest of my argument to see if you agree with the whole.
If you agree with the whole, then any narrow win for a Democrat in Washington -- such as the Gregoire "win" -- will rest on a margin of illegal votes. See, that wasn't too hard, was it?
Posted by: Jim Miller on January 12, 2005 02:23 PMHow can anyone look at situation in KC and call it valid and proper? They have lost control and cannot properly account for the results of the election.
Would you accept this from your bank or employer?
"We seem to have more hours worked than paid for....oh well, time to move on" Puleeez.
If you are eligible to vote, but were prevented from doing so, you have been DISenfranchised, and the result is an electoral UNDERenfranchisement.
If you are NOT eligible to vote, but were NOT prevented from doing so, the legitimate vote total has been augmented by ineligible ballots, and you have contributed to OVERenfranchisement.
Got it? Perfect enfranchisement, underenfranchisement, overenfranchisement. That's at the electoral level, not the voter level. Similar to valid votes, undervotes (not enough choices marked) and overvotes (too many choices marked). Just enough, not enough, too much.
When someone's legal vote gets canceled by an illegal vote, this is supposed to be "overenfranchisement." It's not serious. It's just "too much."
That's a lack of commitment to voters' rights, and I think you are entirely right.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 12, 2005 02:36 PMThese guys hate dialogue, gets in the way of thier hate.
Posted by: welcoming commitee on January 12, 2005 02:38 PMYou are making the claim of it not being serious, not me. Find another strawman.
Posted by: torridjoe on January 12, 2005 02:40 PMI know a great many people, mainly poor, that say "I had a hard life, so I deserve to [cheat, lie, etc]" For instance, I know people who will use coupons that have expired, hoping the cashier does not notice ( my mom even did this, which drove my dad crazy). When asked, they say "I have bad luck, so I deserve to do it"
A girl I dated last year even said "The government should pay for me to go to school, [as well as other things]"
This attitude of entitlement pervades a certain segment of our society, mainly among liberals. Because they think they are entitled to certain breaks, it is a small step from that to thinking it's ok to cheat to get them.
"after all" they say "the rich people are already cheating, so it's ok"
Oh about pointing out Republican fraud:
Also, there was election fraud suspected in Cicero, IL, around 2000, and Maltese was a Republican.
"unreconciled votes to voters of 1/2 of 1% or more - all paid County elections officials shall immediately be terminated for gross negligence."
Tempting, but perhaps there could be situations (although I'm darned if I can think of any) where neither incompetence nor fraud would cause this, and it is most likely that not all the officials would be to blame. After all, while KC managed to come up with thousands of unmatched votes, both sides agree that the majority of the elections people (even there) did a good job. It only takes a few to screw it up for everyone.
Perhaps an automatic referral to both the State and Federal Attornies General with firing (and jail time) for those who had (or should have had) knowledge?
I also think we could come up with some less cumbersome methods with absentee ballots and still solve the problems. Perhaps the option of a thumbprint on the inside flap of the envelope, along with printed name and signature? There are some good inkless fingerprint systems.
I'd also add a requirement that the ballots be postmarked before the date of the election. Yes, I heard the hoorah about ships not postmarking ballots, but I've served on Navy ships. Every junior postal clerk knows that every piece of mail must have a postmark (and not just those with stamps.) Ballots are especially sensitive in this area, and everyone knows it.
I'd also add the requirement that absentee ballots without postmark be returned and (if military,) a statement be sent to the sending command's CO, so that the offending PC (that's Postal Clerk in the Navy) can be disciplined. Proper handling of ballots is important and we all know it. A "command" line on the outer envelope would allow this, while keeping confidentiality.
I'd add a requirement for consistent voting systems and recountable paper ballots. One system I've heard of uses an electronic screen that then produces the (properly) filled-in ballot. The voter gets to look over the ballot before submitting it for counting. None of this "intent" nonsense.
How about a minimum number (working) of voting machines per thousand voters in any precinct?
Just some ideas...
Posted by: John Barelli on January 12, 2005 02:44 PMIt may or may not affect the result of the election, depending on whether the illegal votes were biased in one direction.
Either way, my vote was shredded and I was disenfranchised.
You refuse to understand that every single person who legally submits a ballot is entitled by law to have it counted. This is central to democracy.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 12, 2005 02:47 PMVote not shredded--previous count + 1.
Vote shredded--previous count unaltered.
You continue to suppose that any invalid vote, by nature, occurs in a 2-way race only, and is by definition oppositional to a valid one. You seem to labor under the impression that counting votes involves pairing them off in 2-way oppositions, rather than counting them individually and adding one tally for the chosen candidate when a vote is tabulated. Even in this case, your scenario fails. If your vote is shredded compared to an oppositional one, the count is Opponent +1, you -1. If it is not shredded, the count is Opponent +1, you +1. There is a difference.
You're also dead, dead wrong that you have the absolute right to have your vote counted. You are entitled only to due dilligence to have it counted. Your point is undermined by Rossi's positions in the most recent Supreme Court ruling, wherein he claimed that after a certain deadline, even legal ballots may not be counted.
Oh, and if you disagree with my thesis, please come up with some significant evidence for the other side of the argument. If Larry Sabato, John Fund, and I are wrong, show us why.
Posted by: Jim Miller on January 12, 2005 03:03 PMThe same is not true of conservative political
culture. Conservative political culture
stresses virtues such as self-restraint,
self-reliance, hard work and playing by the
rules.
Given those two seperate world-views it is not
a surprise which party is usually caught cheating.
And, as to the theory that Democrats cheat more
because they are a better position to do so:
Republicans controlling the same offices would
cheat at a much lower frequency because a
dishonest Republican working in an all-Republican
office would fear being turned in by fellow
Republicans much more than a dishonest Democrat
working in an all-Democratic office!
I think an important part of this debate is the fact that democrats continually oppose any legislation concerning election reform. I have to show I.D. to purchase tabacco or alcohol but it is an infringement of my rights to have to show it to vote? How absurd! It is clear that democrats don't want to fix such problems because they use these problems to their advantage.
Posted by: Young Repub on January 12, 2005 03:15 PMSixty days!? How about 24 hours for all polling-place ballots, and continuously for absentees (i.e. at all times the number of votes counted for processed absentee ballots must precisely match the number of ballots accepted).
Reconciliation should be done at the precinct level, and precincts should balance perfectly except in cases of known identifiable problems (e.g. if someone walks up to the election officials with a gun, demands a ballot, and then votes it, that precinct should expect to be off by one but such an event should be logged someplace).
I would posit that a proper course of action if a precinct doesn't balance would be to the discrepancy margin and add that to a count of 'contested votes' attributable to the party in control of that region. If the number of contested votes attributable to the party that "wins" of an election is more than half of the error margin, the loser shall have the right to demand a re-vote.
This, more than anything else I can think of, would put pressure on election officials to clean up their act. Like it or not, a lot of voters aren't going to mind election officials that get away with cheating in their favor. But nobody is going to like election officials whose misfeasance or malfeasance force an election re-vote. Make it abundantly clear who's responsible for do-over elections and I suspect those people will get unelected in short order.
Posted by: supercat on January 12, 2005 03:16 PMThey don't use Fraudoires new math at this site. If I (a registered voting citizen) cast a vote for Dino Rossi and you (assuming you are a felon or dead or in some other way ineligibale to vote) cast a vote for Fraudoire - your ILLEGAL vote cancelled my LEGAL vote. That is very hard for libs to understand. Perhaps you should find a different site where they use Fraudoires new math to determine equations.
On another subject: whose bright idea was it to prevent checking or asking about citizenship to determine voter eligibility? I've heard that must be changed on a national level...???
Posted by: Julie on January 12, 2005 03:19 PMAs for proving a negative--no thanks. You know when the main selling point for an idea is conjecture, anecdotal evidence, and large jumps in logic based on shaky premises, there's not a lot going on behind the theory. Sabato's no liberal, by the way.
Posted by: torridjoe on January 12, 2005 03:34 PM"As I indicated, while you allowed a theoretical plausibility for GOP fraud, you made it clear that all the serious fraud you can think of is Democratic. Which suggests you weren't looking very hard, or perhaps only in certain places. "
With this wording, you condemn your entire reasoning for not having a revote. There is no presented evidence of GOP fraud in your post.
No matter, you can go back to sleep now...I am done with your tripe.
Further, even if there were evidence, that would not diminish the need for a re-vote. To be sure, if GOP won a revote but GOP ineptness and/or malfeasance were to produce a number of 'questional' votes exceeding the margin of victory, it might be necessary to throw out that election as well, but I would think that the re-vote would get enough scrutiny to prevent any serious 'accidental' mistakes.
Posted by: supercat on January 12, 2005 04:17 PMOn another subject: whose bright idea was it to prevent checking or asking about citizenship to determine voter eligibility? I've heard that must be changed on a national level...???
Asking about citizenship is not only permitted, it is done. When you register, you swear (under penalty of perjury) that you are a citizen.
Proving it is a different matter. Since there is no form of identification other than a passport that proves citizenship, many people would have a difficult time doing so. Since there is no "national ID card" and there is great resistance to that idea from all sides, this is a tough nut to crack.
Links to both (presumably) left and right wing resistance to a national id:
Texas Republican Ron Paul: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2004/tst090604.htm
ACLU (I should note that while I don't see the ACLU as left wing, I realize that most Republicans do.) : http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=13604&c=130
Posted by: John Barelli on January 12, 2005 04:50 PMWhat matters is that fraud may have been committed of any sort. Investigate, analyze and prosecute. Anything less is unacceptable.
Failure to carry out a thorough investigation of irreconcilable election issues by the persons placed in this authority in is itself an act of complicity.
Still, apart from the comic relief, you serve to remind the sane among us of this:
When a typical pinky-lefty liberal is confronted with irrefutable truth, he/she/*unknown* ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS tries to overcome said truth through: (a) shouting, (b) name calling, (c) interrupting, (d) "No evidence!", (e) violence, or (f) all of the above.
So you are a liberal, TJ. How cute! Say something in liberal for me, like "proletariat" or "bourgeois", or sing the Marseillaise. Pleeeze?
Posted by: AjalonVox on January 12, 2005 05:24 PM
Is he the guy who started dating his girlfriends daughter, then did a bit of roughing up on her?
Ah yes, that John Fund.
Posted by: steve on whidbey on January 12, 2005 08:34 PMOh, how noble to associate with a Christian conservative. You are just too pious for the rest of us.
Posted by: strtaightshooter on January 12, 2005 09:58 PMIts time to move on. and time to get over it.
Posted by: Magnum Serpentine on January 13, 2005 07:24 AMvoter photo identification legislation
You'll see a clear pattern of Democrats opposing photo IDs at the polls.
Don't take my word for it. Take a look for yourself. These politicians are largely not interested in protecting voters' rights--and the record is there for all to see.
Posted by: Bostonian on January 13, 2005 08:17 AMWhat is your source for your statement:
...."If the Republicans committ more voter fraud than the Democrats" Is look to the red states of ohio and florida and you will find your Republican voter fraud in mass.
Show ONE study/investigation that EVER came to this conclusion
I would opine that organized vote fraud tilts more to the Democratic side (it is more prominently present in large urban areas, which are more often run by one party, political machine style systems that are more often Democratic). Is it just greater opportunity? I don't know.
Posted by: krm on January 13, 2005 12:26 PM