As Hugh Hewitt wrote a few years ago, if it’s not close, they can’t cheat.
33 thoughts on “The Problem With A Close Race In New Jersey”
Comments are closed.
As Hugh Hewitt wrote a few years ago, if it’s not close, they can’t cheat.
Comments are closed.
It’s certainly possible to cheat in a non-close election, but the fact that cheating only makes a difference in the rare case when a race is extraordinarily close is yet one more reason why it isn’t the bogeyman that the GOP imagines.
but the fact that cheating only makes a difference in the common case when a race is moderately close
Fixed.
when a race is moderately close
To my mind, moderately close means within 10,000 votes. How do you propose to get 10,000 people to commit felony vote fraud? Or 1,000 to do it ten times, or 100 to do it 100 times? While keeping the whole thing a secret, and not having a single participant caught by an alert poll worker? Where would you find people with the discretion, discipline, motivation, and readiness to do federal prison time to sign up for such a project, and how much would you have to pay them?
Even if you did jump through all these hoops, most of the time your efforts would not make a difference, because most races aren’t that close (you’d have to organize the whole things weeks or months ahead of time, when no one could reliably say how close it would turn out — it wasn’t long ago that Christie was heading for a blowout). You would have taken on enormous risks (a long prison term, backlash against your favored candidate and party) for no reward.
Or you could put the same money and effort towards conventional get-out-the-vote efforts and get a better return (there are millions of potential voters just a phone call or ride away from showing up at the polls), with no legal or political risks.
Why would any sane person even try to cheat?
To my mind, moderately close means within 10,000 votes. How do you propose to get 10,000 people to commit felony vote fraud?
Or a few people to do it 10,000 times. Or 100,000 times.
Why would any sane person even try to cheat?
Because there are big rewards for doing so.
Or you could put the money towards perfectly legal policy decisions — let’s overlook mismatched signatures! Or registration cards signed by “M. Mouse, Esq” and “P. Nocchio, Ph.D” Or even outright voter intimidation! — wouldn’t wanna disenfranchise minorities, now — which have the effect of allowing risk-free fraudulent voting by thousands.
Put it this way, Jim. Just suppose as a legislator I was getting big time donations from loyal supporters in the fire-insurance industry. They’d love a public panic about fires that would let ’em jack the rates up. Do I need to organize arsonists myself? Risk, as you say, serious criminal penalties?
Or do I just need to signal that judicial “persecution” of arsonists won’t be tolerate in my multicultural admiinstration sympathetic to the “root causes” that cause people without health insurance to burn down houses to…uh…express their sense of disenfranchisement? And then the problem takes care of itself!
Oh yeah, and then there’s always the policy decisions that cut down the other side’s vote.
Whew! We got all the absentee ballots requested by Marines serving in Afghanistan into the mail! And there’s still a full 8 hours to go before polls close! Good job, men! Your commitment to a clean and fair vote is admirable!
Or a few people to do it 10,000 times. Or 100,000 times.
How would you propose to vote 10,000 times in a single election, and not get caught?
Because there are big rewards for doing so.
The reward is just as big if you put your effort towards improving the turnout of legitimate voters, and you don’t have to worry about going to prison.
If large scale vote fraud was so easy and attractive, you’d expect there to be regular prosecutions. Instead the prosecutions are for voter registration fraud, which has no effect on the legitimacy of elections.
If large scale vote fraud was so easy and attractive, you’d expect there to be regular prosecutions. Instead the prosecutions are for voter registration fraud, which has no effect on the legitimacy of elections.
Well that would be true if large scale vote fraud was not in the interests of those who decide what to prosecute.
Now, curiously enough, as it happens there are indeed just about zero prosecutions for voter fraud going on in the Obama Justice Department, whereas under the Bush Administration Justice Department, there was a big bump up in voter fraud prosecutions ordered by the AG. However, Clinton appointed USDAs balked, and declined to be as vigorous as the AG wanted — gosh, why? — and the decision was made to fire them, as the President has a Constitutional right to do for any reason or none, and replace them.
Anyone remember what the response of the Democratic Congress/media machine was to this event where a bunch of US DAs lost their jobs suddenly? Or the name of the AG that ordered those voter fraud investigations? Man by the much maligned name of Ashcroft? Hmm.
“Why would any sane person even try to cheat?”
Let’s see, worked in Washington state, Milwaukee, Minnesota, in Chicago since voting was invented.
Not working in New Jersey tonight, however.
Wonder if any Democrats not already on board the Chicago Machine Express are starting to wonder why the ocean has sudden receded from the shore in that weird way….all those fish flopping around…where did all the water go?
Don’t worry, it will be back, next November.
C’mon, Democrats. Shake it off! More taxes! More government mandates! More lectures from Senators ‘n’ Congressmen and President My Shit Doesn’t Stink to Joe and Jane Sixpack, telling them what to think, and reminding them they’re stoopid racists if they think otherwise, or independently. More snotty dismissals of “teabaggers” and “town hall crazies!” Screw the fainthearts who worry about ice in the sea lanes, see blueish shadows looming malignantly in front of the prow. Full speed ahead! The ship is unsinkable!
Jim: “How would you propose to vote 10,000 times in a single election, and not get caught?”
Easy. Two come right off the top of my head.
– Work to declare votes coming in from military overseas are not valid. Whine like a child if someone observes that this makes you scum. Point out your impeccable credentials as a patriot – you supported the Chicago Olympics bid.
– Order tens of thousands of absentee ballots for individuals falsely registered through community organizations. If the signatures on the ballots and voter registrations don’t match up, insist the votes be counted anyway… “So no one is disenfrachised.”
You won’t worry about getting caught. Do it in the open, with the help of lawyers. Let people observe you doing this. As you do it, claim you’re motivated by genuine morality.
Christie got beyond the “margin of fraud”. Christie wins in bluest of blue state and the MSM big story is Owens win in NY-23. The AP lumps McConnell and Christie in one story. Bias? What bias?
You won’t worry about getting caught. Do it in the open, with the help of lawyers. Let people observe you doing this. As you do it, claim you’re motivated by genuine morality.
Yes, also make sure that you’ve elected a president who will appoint an AG who will be sure to look the other way, as long as the fraud benefits his own party.
No to mention magically finding boxes of uncounted ballots during a contested recount ala Al Franken/Coleman.
the Bush Administration Justice Department, there was a big bump up in voter fraud prosecutions ordered by the AG
Those were prosecutions for voter registration fraud, not voter fraud. There’s a big difference.
Order tens of thousands of absentee ballots for individuals falsely registered through community organizations.
And where do you find the thousands of people to fill in those fraudulent ballots, and not tell anyone?
And where do you find the thousands of people to fill in those fraudulent ballots, and not tell anyone?
Jim, why do you continue to stupidly assume that one person can’t fraudulently fill out multiple ballots?
Jim: “How would you propose to vote 10,000 times in a single election, and not get caught?”
Just put Acorn on the job.
Jim, why do you continue to stupidly assume that one person can’t fraudulently fill out multiple ballots?
One person can fill out a few ballots. But if you want to submit 10,000 fraudulent absentee ballots you need a lot of different people filling them out, or else the handwriting similarities will be a red flag.
Just put Acorn on the job.
Despite the hype, Acorn does not have supernatural powers. How exactly is Acorn going to pull off a large-scale, secret conspiracy? They are hardly a model of discipline and discretion — they can’t even keep their employees from submitting voter registrations for Mickey Mouse!
They are hardly a model of discipline and discretion — they can’t even keep their employees from submitting voter registrations for Mickey Mouse!
How many times has that happened again? If there’s no punishment or media interest, then they’re keeping it secret enough.
Yes, also make sure that you’ve elected a president who will appoint an AG who will be sure to look the other way, as long as the fraud benefits his own party.
The person picked for the AG slot is probably more important than who gets picked to be Veep, simply because of recent acquiesence by the media in high-level obstruction-of-justice cases.
Those were prosecutions for voter registration fraud, not voter fraud. There’s a big difference.
Indeed yes. One phrase has an extra word.
But seriously, Jim, the difference is like being stabbed to death with a knife versus shot to death. The means may be different, but the outcome — delegitimizing elections, possibly changing outcomes — remains the same.
And that’s the point. Listen, you reallly should deviate from orthodoxy and party loyalty here. Given that voter fraud benefits your side of the aisle you yourself should be harshest on it. Because this kind of nonsense tends to benefit your side more, it’s more important for you to strongly dissociate yourself from it. It touches your credibility more, in the same way that people are naturally more suspicious of the honorable intentions of a business executive when some low-level employee is caught committing some fraud that benefits the company.
For this reason, Democrats should be out front in vigorously denouncing ACORN fraudsters, and should be in the lead of efforts to make fraud harder by, e.g. insisting on normal photo ID before voting. That’s the kind of thing that would make more of we on the other side see them as honest opposition, rather than — for example — cynical bottom-feeding scum who would do absolutely anything to acquire and keep power.
The means may be different, but the outcome — delegitimizing elections, possibly changing outcomes — remains the same.
This is precisely wrong. Voter registration fraud means that there’s a fictional voter on the rolls who never votes — it has no effect on election outcomes or legitimacy.
should be in the lead of efforts to make fraud harder by, e.g. insisting on normal photo ID before voting
First show me that there are actually people swinging elections by voting under false names, and then show me that requiring photo ID won’t result in thousands of legitimate voters not being able to vote.
The cynical (but possibly accurate) take on the whole voter registration fraud issue is that it is a phony controversy about a non-existent problem, whipped up in order to suppress voting by the sort of people that Acorn is trying to turn out: the poor, minorities, and others who historically favor Democrats, and who can be discouraged by even seemingly trivial obstacles to voting (such as photo ID).
This is precisely wrong. Voter registration fraud means that there’s a fictional voter on the rolls who never votes — it has no effect on election outcomes or legitimacy.
A phrase like this is meant to be followed with, “Thank you, I’m here all week – try the veal!” It’s like arguing that attempted murder be limited to prosecution of those cases where the attempt was made, but for some reason failed.
Jim “One person can fill out a few ballots. But if you want to submit 10,000 fraudulent absentee ballots you need a lot of different people filling them out, or else the handwriting similarities will be a red flag.”
In that case, you simper that one should ignore handwriting irregularities because of potential disenfrachisement. Much like complaining that presenting a photo ID is too much of a burden for a person entering a public voting place in plain sight of the world.
“This is precisely wrong. Voter registration fraud means that there’s a fictional voter on the rolls who never votes — it has no effect on election outcomes or legitimacy.”
On a massive scale, it overwhelms local officials trying to sort out the mess and leaves open the very real possibility of invalid votes being missed. For you to assume the good in those with whom you agree and the bad with whom you disagree shows either your naïveté or a partisan ideology bereft of reason.
“…the poor, minorities, and others who historically favor Democrats, and who can be discouraged by even seemingly trivial obstacles to voting (such as photo ID).”
When I remember what Iraqis and Afghans went through to vote and read about Americans complaining how hard it is to go vote and people like you enabling them, I want to puke. These things seem trivial because they are.
I’m having a hard time thinking of a poor minority person who would not have a driver’s license or work or school photo ID, or would be freaked out by being asked to show it before voting. Don’t they have to show it to pick up their food stamps, get a job, cash a check — you know, any of the normal things adults do every day?
If there are any such drooling feeble-minded doofuses, should they really be voting? And why would one assume they are more likely to be black? I mean, unless you’re a vile racist, and you just assume if you’re barely competent to function in 21st century society then you’re more likely to be black.
And why would one assume they are more likely to be black? I mean, unless you’re a vile racist, and you just assume if you’re barely competent to function in 21st century society then you’re more likely to be black.
Or more likely to be a Democrat. People like Jim are the most pernicious racists of all. But I never fail to be amused by the Democrats’ arguments (as we saw in 2000 in Florida) that their voters are idiots.
I’m having a hard time thinking of a poor minority person who would not have a driver’s license or work or school photo ID, or would be freaked out by being asked to show it before voting.
Your ignorance of their existence does not mean they exist. According to the League of Women Voters, over 20 million legal voters do not have photo id, including 25% of African American voters.
And why would one assume they are more likely to be black?
It isn’t an assumption, it’s a fact.
If there are any such drooling feeble-minded doofuses, should they really be voting?
It should be up to them, not you.
Rather, Carl’s ignorance of their existence does not mean they do not exist.
Gee, Jim cites a left wing group quoting a left wing survey by a center that gave an award to Mary Robinson.
Your ignorance of their existence does not mean they exist. According to the League of Women Voters, over 20 million legal voters do not have photo id, including 25% of African American voters.
Assuming that’s true, then the easy solution is for them to get photo ID. If they can be “discouraged” by this sort of trivial obstacle, then they aren’t worthy to vote.