On the likelihood of voting reform, circa 2008
[NOTE: I happened across this post I wrote in November of 2008 about voting reform, and I thought I’d repost it now just to highlight how clear things were on this score even all those years ago. So here it is.]
After 2000, there were many calls for voting reform. Same in 2004, and now again. Voting fraud—or even the perception of it—can’t help but undermine trust in the legitimacy of the government, and that’s not good. So one would think that fixing the problems would have bipartisan approval.
One of the main arguments, and the focus for at least some of the rage, against George Bush was the voting turmoil in 2000. Bush was not responsible for Florida and the butterfly ballot, but he was the beneficiary and it served to channel anger against him and to amplify it, right at the outset. The same is true of Acorn shenanigans in the election of 2008 as they relate to Obama, and his previous connections to Acorn only make the perception worse.
This sort of doubt directed at a President-elect does not bode well for the institution of the Presidency itself, nor for the country. So why wouldn’t both parties do all they could to change it?
“Dream on, neo” you say. And you would be correct. Each party wishes to maximize the number and/or proportion of its own voters, for obvious reasons. For Republicans, this means making rules tougher (or at least keeping them traditionally tough) about who is allowed to vote. No motor voter. Definitely no aliens being able to present a utility bill on voting day. Forget about felons. I happen to agree with these rules, even in the abstract. I think that voting should be restricted to citizens, for example—I’m funny that way. And I am fairly certain I felt that way even back in my liberal Democrat days.
However, Democrats have a strong interest in allowing such people to vote, because they tend to vote Democratic. It’s really not rocket science. As the party encourages expansion of voting rights and winks at fraud that aims to include these voters, and solidifies its power as a result, why would that party ever vote to restrict the practice?…
It is sad but true that few politicians who are favored by certain voting policies would slit their own throats and vote against them, merely for reasons of justice or fairness or ethics. This is why, once this begins, it is unlikely to end—at least, as long as that party continues to be in power. And that party is more likely to stay in power as long as the voting policies that favor it are in place. It is a vicious cycle, or a wonderful cycle—depending on your point of view, and your party.
Of the 25 counties in Florida that had the most spoiled ballots for double votes, 24 were run by Democrats. Perhaps Democrat voters were just a lot stupider about voting properly. Or perhaps someone took a coat hanger or other wire and pushed it through the Gore hole in stacks of the voting cards. That would leave Gore votes valid but negate votes for any other candidate.
I read that speculation in 2000 and wasn’t sure what to think about it. Today, I have no doubt that it happened. I am convinced that Democrats will use any and all methods available to cheat and win. I believe that because all the evidence points that way.
By the way, there was a Federal Court injunction requiring Florida counties to count ballots from military personnel serving overseas even when the ballot envelopes lacked a postmark (as they often did). The Gore legal team went to every Dem election commission and told them that they were required to throw those ballots out.
The Gore lawyers were directly involved in executing a conspiracy to deny military voters their right to vote. They should have all gone to prison. If GOP lawyers had done it, they’d still be rotting behind bars.
And I no longer believe that the early call by the networks was inadvertent. It cost Bush thousands and thousands of votes in the panhandle.
I reflexly associate vote fraud with Democrats. Am I wrong?
Noooo. Never.
But what are we going to do to fix it?
Little has been done to improve access to the polls since 2000, nor to organize contests and design ballots to minimize errors. There’s three reasons for that: inertia, stupidity, and a lack of interest in doing so in favor of doing things that allow for more vote fraud.
The very simplest thing they could have done would have been to move voting times to Friday evening, Saturday morning, and Saturday afternoon. Only about 12% of the adult population works on Saturday, so you’d not have people lining up before work or after work.
Another thing that could have been done is expanding the number of polling stations. When I was involved in local politics in New York, we had one precinct for every 1,000 residents. The national mean now is one for every 3,000 residents. The notorious State of Georgia has one for every 6,000 residents.
Another thing that could have been done was to resort the electoral calendar. Elect the general run of state and federal offices the 1st and the 3d year of a quadrennial cycle; elect the general run of local offices the 2d and the 4th year. Elect non-judicial offices for 4 year terms (bar the federal Congress) and elect like offices on the same berth in every quadrennial cycle. Elect judges in May along with offices auxilliary to or adjacent to the courts. Reduce the number of special-function offices and ceremonial offices you elect.
I agree with stan above. I could not have said it better,.
this is why cloward and piven pushed for the motor voter law in 1994, then the 2000 imbruglio, helped muddle the point, then there was diebold kerfluffle, then the dems put the ‘right people in ohio and and other states, that allowed them to win, of course charlie cheetah had depleted the gop funds even if they wanted to challenge in florida,
Cal Thomas in 2000 published a column on a statistical study which made the case that the ‘over votes’ you heard so much about in Florida were a consequence of Democratic Party water carriers running ballots cast by Republican voters through the punch machine again. Didn’t know how to critically evaluate that argument. I do know that a Democratic elections official in South Florida was found with a punch machine in his car.
It’s not that challenging to create a satisfactory system of elections administration. It just never happens in this country. IMO, digital technology is not a good idea in this realm of endeavour. Get rid of all of it.
And where would we be without an occasional dose of humor…?
(Adam Schiff-type humor….)
“Democrats Propose Constitutional Amendment To Overturn First Amendment Decision”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/democrats-propose-constitutional-amendment-overturn-first-amendment-decision
Key grafs:
‘…Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif). said in a press release he and Democrat colleagues introduced the “Democracy For All Amendment” to “overturn legal precedents that have allowed unrestrained campaign spending and dark money to corrupt American democracy.” He has introduced the constitutional amendment every year since 2013, according to the release.
‘ “The flow of unrestricted corporate and dark money into our elections has dangerously eroded the American people’s faith in our democracy, and in our government’s ability to deliver for them and their families,” Schiff said in a press release…. To truly rein in dark money, we must amend our Constitution.”….’ [Emphasis mine; Barry M.]
Random voting irregularities would affect in a random manner which candidate benefits and which one does not.
Sometimes the republican candidate should benefit and other times the demokrat candidate should benefit; if “irregularities” are random .
But pretty much every single time one hears of voting irregularities, the candidate that appears to get short-changed is the republican candidate. I have yet to hear of a significant voting “incident” that was negative for the demokrat candidate.
This alone should tell you something smells real bad.
As far as I can tell , pretty much everybody has a cell phone and, for those who want one, a drivers license. Folks don’t seem to have any problems figuring out how to get these things.
Yet we are to believe that certain classes of people just can’t figure out where to vote or how to obtain an ID.
Sure.
I still don’t understand why republican dominated state legislatures make no effort at all to improve the voting process in their respective states.
The demokrats have no problem at all changing / ignoring their state voting laws to benefit their candidates and all the while the republicans, as is their wont, sit around mostly silently with their thumbs up their anal orifices.
Some insist that out there – somewhere – there are republican / right wing attack dogs. If they exist, they are doing a damn good job of impersonating Claude Raines’ character in “The Invisible Man.” (a 1933 movie in which Raines’s character, Dr. Jack Griffin, was invisible) .
I still don’t understand why republican dominated state legislatures make no effort at all to improve the voting process in their respective states.
==
Republican state legislators are usually remarkable for their lack of interest in accomplishing anything at all. Well, maybe an ill-considered amendment to the penal code named after the state’s analogue to Megan Kanka or perhaps a tax cut which will have to be repealed in three years because the careerists in the Republican caucus sabotage all efforts to reduce spending.
==
Democrats don’t care about process. They just want to win. The goo goo lobbies (Common Cause, League of Women Voters) used to care about process. Now they just want the Democrats to win.
==
I have written many times about the efforts Republican legislatures made to reform voting. Often those efforts were either vetoed or struck down by courts.
There is a massive political establishment of pollsters and political consultants — yes, and journalists — who depend for their living on elections which are fair-enough that the deep state and those in power have to worry about them. When elections become more predictable and corrupt, this establishment should be willing to work (basically for free) on the side of those who are trying to make elections more representative of the will of the voters.
To some extent, they are like defense contractors — self interest requires that the cold electoral wars be neither won nor lost.
You could regard this as a hopeful observation …