Voting

Ohio Poll Worker Sentenced to Five Years in Prison for Voter Fraud; Voted for Obama up to Six Times

|

click once
Reason 24/7

Even some supporters of voter ID laws, like the Ohio Secretary of State, admit voting fraud is rare. But it happens.

From the AP:

A former Ohio poll worker on Wednesday was sentenced to five years in prison for voting illegally on behalf of other people, including a comatose relative.

Hamilton County Common Pleas Court Judge Robert Ruehlman handed down the sentence to Melowese Richardson, 58, of Madisonville, two months after she pleaded no contest to four counts of illegal voting and subsequently was found guilty.

As part of a plea agreement, prosecutors dropped four other charges; Richardson had faced up to 12 years in prison if she had been convicted of all eight original charges.

Richardson, in fact, admitted to voting at least twice (by absentee ballot and at the polls) in a local TV news interview, and also cast absentee ballots on behalf of several other people; she was one of 19 people investigated by the local county board of elections for suspected voter fraud. Robinson previously said she would fight the charges to defend Obama's "right to sit as president of the United States."

Follow these stories and more at Reason 24/7 and don't forget you can e-mail stories to us at 24_7@reason.com and tweet us at @reason247.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

301 responses to “Ohio Poll Worker Sentenced to Five Years in Prison for Voter Fraud; Voted for Obama up to Six Times

  1. Racist American God is on a roll this week.

  2. “Even some supporters of voter ID laws, like the Ohio Secretary of State, admit voting fraud is rare.”

    And we know this how, exactly?

    1. Either the Schr?dinger equation, or a deep feeling in the cockles of our collective heart.

      1. And if I’ve been proven to be a heartless bureaucrat?

    2. Because if you haven’t caught people it means it isn’t happening.

      For example, if we had no police officers and never looked into any homicides, that would mean no one is ever murdered. Do you see?

      1. Cops rarely murder people. I know this because that’s what they say!

      2. Funny how the people who go on ad nauseum about the faulty logic behind things like statistics on unreported rapes have no trouble using the same faulty logic for their pet political causes.

        1. Of course, it’s like some weird circle jerk of confirmation bias they can’t break.

          1. I don’t think that’s how Stormy meant it, but it’s hilarious that’s how it turned out.

            not that smart, are ya Stormy?

        2. Funny how the people who go on ad nauseum about the faulty logic behind things like statistics on unreported rapes have no trouble using the same faulty logic for their pet political causes.

          Except that it’s a completely different situation. The point is, it’s impossible to know how much voting fraud is going on without voter ID because it’s virtually impossible to catch anyone.

          It would be more like if we had no detectives investigating rape. In such an instance, pointing out that we don’t know how much rape is going on would be a completely valid point.

          Outside of your little snide comments, do you ever contribute anything?

          1. (S)he really doesn’t.

          2. Not impossible, but very difficult. The only situations in which someone could be caught would be if a legit voter shows up at the polls and finds that a vote has already been cast in her name, or if someone in line at the polls overhears someone not Citizen X claiming to be Citizen X.

            1. The only situations in which someone could be caught would be if a legit voter shows up at the polls and finds that a vote has already been cast in her name

              This happened to my father every time I voted absentee while in college.

              He would just vote as me instead.

            2. Or notice when you’re pointing out your name in the voter list that your deceased grandparents have already voted.

              1. Time to revive the old joke:

                “My grandfather was always a loyal Democrat. He died in 2007, then in 2008 and 2012 he voted for Obama!”

          3. They caught this person?

            1. I don’t know why there is a question mark there.

            2. Most people voting fraudulently aren’t stupid enough to vote twice under their own name, then go on television and admit to voting under the names of a couple of other people

    3. That electoral scholar Garry Trudeau writes about it regularly.
      If you can’t trust a lefty cartoonist, who can you trust?

  3. Do not worry – some troll will be along to say how this proves nothing, means nothing and racist!!!!

    1. THIS PROVES NOTHING, THIS MEANS NOTHING, AND….RACIST!

      You’re welcome

  4. Seriously? You hyperlink the phrase “From the AP”, but link it to 24/7? Who is the removed-from-operations Reason management type who is fooled by the bogus click counts 24/7 is getting? And if it’s just for reporting to potential advertisers, doesn’t that feel at least a little like fraud?

    1. Re-reading, it’s possible the AP link was just botched.

      And for the first time in the history of the Internets, a snap judgement was regretted…

      1. I am shocked. Next thing you will tell me is that people commenting on the internet make typoss!

        1. Well the link was changed, but still not to the AP.

          Indignant rage re-engaged!

          1. Link is to CantonRep.com but the byline on that site credits the AP… so there 😛

          2. Scotticus Finch| 7.18.13 @ 3:24PM |#
            “Well the link was changed, but still not to the AP.”

            Yeah, all those hit-counts are never gamed!

        2. Or that texting your boss while drunk is a bad idea!

          1. When my boss is drunk, he never seems to have a problem with it. Just don’t text him when he’s sober.

        3. Always spell it “typoes” to confuse the Dan Quail memorial grammar nazis.

  5. Yes, catching and prosecuting people for voter fraud is relatively rare. Why is that?

    1. At some point, surveillance is going to be so pervasive in this country that the only thing the secret ballot will protect is voter fraud.

    2. Yes, catching ?

      Boom! Answered your own question.

  6. Richardson told a local television station this month that she voted twice last November. She cast an absentee ballot and then voted at the polls as well. “I … certainly wanted my vote to count, so I voted. I voted at the polls.”

    Yeah, Melowese, I’m never too sure my first vote counts either.

  7. Wait, rare? 19 other people in the *same* county were investigated. How many counties are there in the USA?

    1. Well, how many *people* are there in the USA?

      So, rare.

      /sarc

      1. 3147 counties or equivalent. Say 15 people per country vote five times. Presto 235,000 additional ‘voters’…

        1. and in a close election…

          1. In Chicago…

        2. Yep.

          WDATPDIM 8-(

    2. Also, that rarity might make it a relative non-issue in a presidential election, but there could easily be a large number of state and local elections that are swung by voter fraud.

      There are state elections that swing on 20 votes. ‘It’s rare’ is hardly an excuse for allowing the continuation of that kind of fraud.

      1. See my comment just above yours.

    3. Well, TDR, investigated is different than charged or convicted.

      And the county count is not the best way of looking at that since county populations vary so widely. In my state (VA) county populations vary from over one million (Fairfax), to roughly 2,500 (Highland).

      1. Right.

        Hamilton County has 800,000 people, which puts the rate of fraud at .000025. Nationally, that’s 7750 fraudulent votes.

        1. I prefer my crappy math. I’m sure the physical number of people would vary greatly, but the number of votes they procure would also differ. This person was caught voting 5 extra times? Did she vote more? How about someone in Chicago with boxes full of ballots?

          1. In a populous precinct, her voting six times probably wouldn’t make much of a difference; in a small district, yes.

            However, in really small jurisdictions where everyone knows everyone, it’s more difficult to commit fraud.

        2. Is the relevant denominator the number of actual voters, not the population?

          1. Oh, good point.

            I guess that bumps it up to about 22,000 or so.

  8. Robinson previously said she would fight the charges to defend Obama’s “right to sit as president of the United States.”

    It’s hard to argue that this is anything but unhinged power worship. Consent of the governed is an ideological statement and not something to be seriously implemented — not unlike the way voting was treated in the Soviet Union.

    1. Its pretty sad how pervasive this “my team above all else” mentality is.

    2. I’m not seeing power worship; I’m seeing “by whatever means necessary.” I suspect that she justified this to herself on the grounds of all the black people who were prohibited from voting in the Jim Crow south, and the (perceived) stealing of the 2000 election.

      But past injustice does not justify cheating. That is the important message.

      1. …which is a form of power worship. Since we haven’t had a good Godwin in a while, fascism associates the political leader in charge with all national and social aspirations; the Leader retaining and gaining power is thus the people and nation gaining power.

        Same thing happening here: Obama and his entrenched political power is now the “by whatever means necessary”, and not a cause like civil rights for blacks.

        1. I’m trying to frame this as an individual choosing to cheat, which is pretty indisputable in this case. I find that makes for a cleaner argument, and one more accessible to most people, than arguments based on psychoanalyzing her actions. I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m saying that it’s better to keep things simple: she cheated, that’s wrong.

          1. If we’re talking about presenting an argument to the public, I agree.

            I just don’t see how her statement makes sense unless it’s to justify a frankly irrational attachment to leader over principle.

            1. My two-cent psychologizing leads me to one word: “Entitlement.”

      2. By whatever means necessary essentially is power worship. It’s an argument that the ends justify the means, which is the mentality of fascists and lynch mobs everywhere.

        1. While I think that you and TIT are wrong, as stated, ends always justifying means leads to power worship in a political context because of human nature.

          Therefore, the substance of your points is valid.

      3. I’m not seeing power worship; I’m seeing “by whatever means necessary.”

        To be fair, I intend to remain free “by any means necessary.”

  9. By Proggie thinking, this isolated incident demands that sweeping new legislation be enacted to prevent potential future fraud in the entire country.

    1. I’m willing to bet that elections changed by voter fraud are more common than school shootings. All we need is two elections changed by fraud a year.

      1. I’m willing to bet that elections changed by voter fraud are more common than school shootings.

        I’d go further and say that there are more fraudulent “results” than there are ever going to be school shootings.

        School shootings are rare; fraud is not.

    2. Only if they reasoned from principles, and applied those consistently. As is often observed here, they don’t.

  10. This is a lie! Voter fraud is a myth! All the Democrats have told me so! End voter ID now!

    1. You forgot how racist it is. Everyone knows that Hispanics and blacks are too stupid to know how ID works.

      1. No! It’s that they’re too poor to get to an ID issuer!

        1. No, they are too poor to know about an ID issuer!

          So… What TIT said, but, “POOR!”

    2. How exactly would a voter ID law have prevented this?

      1. “Richardson…also cast absentee ballots on behalf of several other people.”

        Seems self-explanatory to me.

        1. Do absentee ballots require some form of ID?

          1. Not in California.

        2. Really? So do you like put your drivers license in the envelope with the absentee ballot when you mail it in? What do they compare it to?

          Maybe you would send a photo of yourself along too. Then they can make sure the photo you sent matches the other photo you sent.

          1. You’re supposed to write down either your license # or your Social Security number.

  11. Voter ID today, National ID tomorrow.

    Suckers.

    1. In AZ there are a variety of forms of ID you can provide to verify your identity for the purposes of voting, including drivers’ license, military ID, passport, a bill that has your name on it coupled with pretty much any photo ID, and some others I can’t remember.

      No creeping national ID necessary.

      1. “But how do we know that the Arizona poll workers aren’t engaging in fraud? Obviously, since the Presidential elections effect the entire nation, we can’t leave such an important process in the hands of a few local yokel volunteers…..”

        Just because something isn’t necessary doesn’t mean they won’t try…and believe me, they will try.

        1. I support voter ID, and I still say, “^^^THIS^^^!”

  12. **Warning** The following contains an utterly bigoted racist rant.

    Is it anti-libertarian to demand that when someone shows up to the polls that they ask him or her for some simple ID?

    I do not find it completely anti-freedom to demand that when someone commits one of the most dangerous public acts possible– Casting a vote for an elected official– that it’s a human tragedy that we ask them for ID and scratch them off a list of some kind showing that they voted, or were eligible to vote. And stuff.

    **end of racist rant**

    1. Given that IDs are required for some many private-sector activities and are held by a huge majority of voters, I can’t see much reason for opposing them other than a big wink at voter fraud.

      1. Joe from Lowell used to say it was racist because many people in immigrant communities didn’t have IDs. The fact that immigrants can’t vote unless they are citizens and thus went through the immigration process, something that most definitely requires an ID, never entered his mind.

        1. To be fair, NPR, after months of searching, was able to find a 78 year old black grandmother whose ID had expired and because of her hectic schedule had not been able to get it renewed by election time, therefore, that was ipso facto proof that lynch mobs were roaming the streets and hanging negroes. At least that’s what I was able to glean from the breathless hand-wringing (can hand-wringing be breathless?) tone of the story.

          1. And they just turned her away even thought it was obviously not a forged ID and she was a registered voter. States never have ways to deal with such a problem.

          2. Repetitive behavior such as hand-wringing are often associated with stress. Full-on crying is also a reaction to stress. So, yes.

          3. I used to work with practically homeless schizophrenics (Actually, I could argue I still do). They all had state-issued IDs. If the mentally ill can get some sort of legally valid picture ID, I think most people could if they wanted to.

            1. unfortunately, we’re not talking about the mentally ill, this is largely about Dem voters. The mentally ill have an excuse.

              1. Note to self: Use concealed carry permit for voter ID in the future.

                It was fun to use at bars, but I dont get carded any more.

      2. A huge majority of voters isn’t all voters. Suppose I were raised by wolves and one day I creep out of the woods and discover that there is an election happening. I am a citizen with all the privileges and immunities that entails. Why should I not have the right to vote, even though I have no ID, birth certificate or any of that?

        1. Because no system is perfect. If we don’t require IDs, a lot more people will be disenfranchised via fraud than wolf children who will be enfranchised.

          1. Because no system is perfect. If we don’t require background checks, a lot more people will be killed felons possessing guns then legitimate owners who will be blocked from purchasing firearms.

            1. Interesting point, but we have background checks. So…

            2. And that is analogous how? That is even fucking stupid for you. Asking for ID is not asking for a background check. So the burden on the two rights are not analogous. If you want to have background checks as a condition to vote, I would object to.

              Just because some conditions really are onerous doesn’t mean any condition is onerous.

              Up your game Stormey. That post doesn’t even meet your low standards.

              1. In both cases it’s the same “preventing a crime from occuring in a small percentage of cases justifies the government hassling the entire population with pointless beuracratic hassles” logic.

                1. Just because the logic is the same doesn’t mean they are the same. Again, one condition is really onerous the other is not. Yes, preventing crime is a justification for some measures, just not every measure.

                2. I fail to see how they are pointless.

                  1. Because contrary to the bogeyman the Republicans keep trying to scare the old white folks with, most voter fraud doesn’t occur by having someone go vote in person multiple times.

                    Voter fraud occurs almost entirely via absentee ballots (as in this case) or through the use of an inside official (as in this case).

                    Voter ID laws don’t fix either of those problems. Just like background checks don’t actual fix the problems that allow felons to get guns. In both cases it’s not really about solving the problem though. It’s about making it enough of a hassle for legitimate people that they’re deterred from engaging in legal behavior.

                    1. Well said.

                    2. most voter fraud doesn’t occur by having someone go vote in person multiple times.

                      How in the fuck would you know?

                    3. Because it would be a stupid way to go about it. If it takes 30 minutes to vote, you can vote in person only cast a couple dozen votes in the same amount of time it would take them to fill out hundreds or thousands of fake absentee ballots.

                    4. Because it would be a stupid way to go about it.

                      “I think that is stupid, ergo, no one ever does it that way”?

                      Gotcha.

                    5. Voter ID laws don’t fix either of those problems. Just like background checks don’t actual fix the problems that allow felons to get guns. In both cases it’s not really about solving the problem though. It’s about making it enough of a hassle for legitimate people that they’re deterred from engaging in legal behavior.

                      How does absentee ballots circumvent the voter identification issue. My estimation of absentee ballots is that they’re actually better controlled than showing up at the polls in a tee-shirt and flip flops.

                      Absentee ballot is sent to my house with my personal identifying information all over it.

                      I guess if you were able to acquire a large number of empty ballots because the ballots themselves were controlled, then hand-walk them in?

                      Am I off base here?

                    6. You can have absentee ballots sent anywhere. That’s what they are for. So what is to stop someone having your ballot sent to somewhere where you are not, with your personal information all over it?

                    7. You can have absentee ballots sent anywhere. That’s what they are for. So what is to stop someone having your ballot sent to somewhere where you are not, with your personal information all over it?

                      I’m not sure how to answer this, because we’re getting into a technical area I don’t know enough about to argue. Can you have as many absentee ballots sent everywhere and anywhere? Can I call the elections board now and just say, “Yeah, this is Paul, I need a ballot sent here, here, there, here, there, there, here here and there” and then I can just mail them all in?

                      If so, then we really, REALLY need some way to ID voters.

        2. If you were raised by wolves and crawled out to discover that there was an election, maybe you should sit this vote out since you probably have no idea what the fuck is happening and thus have no basis on which to make an informed decision.

          I keep hearing that voter ID discourages low-information and disengaged voters from voting, and while I don’t know how true that is it can only be a good thing, IMO.

          1. I keep hearing that voter ID discourages low-information and disengaged voters

            And now you see why Dems object to it.

          2. maybe you should sit this vote out since you probably have no idea what the fuck is happening and thus have no basis on which to make an informed decision.

            Not to worry, I just pull my TEAM lever. It’s much easier than actually getting to know candidates or sifting through issues…

            …duh!

            1. If you’re raised by wolves, who is your TEAM?

              1. TEAM JACOB, of course.

                1. I don’t get it.

                  1. Consider yourself lucky.

              2. If you’re raised by wolves, who is your TEAM?

                Duh…the TEAM my parents were on.

                God, you don’t know nuthin, do you?

          3. I will just pile on here and say that some of us (“FASCIST!”) believe in requirements for voting that go beyond mere citizenship…

            1. Agreed.

            2. It may not be fascist to believe that, but it is inherently anti-liberty. If someone is expected to follow the laws of a republic, they should be able to participate it in regardless of their status as a property holder, level of education, gender, race, or whatever.

              1. Why is it anti-liberty? Voting is a mandate for violence. Just as is the case with any exercise of violence, there is a right way and wrong way to employ it, and I don’t see why meaningful restrictions on that exercise would be anti-liberty.

                The Bill of Rights is inarguably an imposition on people determining the course of their government through majority vote.

              2. Participating does not necessarily require voting. Donating to a candidate, volunteering, protesting all count as participating.

              3. Yep, nothing is more pro-Liberty than having my vote stolen or minimized by cheating.

              4. HM, either you try to make your electoral system secure, or you don’t. If you don’t, it’s anti-liberty because your vote can be negated by a fraudulent one.

                Fraud at the voting booth due to lack of ID laws *might* be rare, but that like saying that burglars rarely enter through kitchen windows, so it’s fine to lock all your other doors and windows but leave that one open.

                Note that most other countries of the world (many quite poor) have far, far more secure voting systems. Liberals would freak if we had a system like Mexico’s.

        3. Why should I not have the right to vote, even though I have no ID, birth certificate or any of that?

          You wouldn’t be registered to vote in the first place.

          1. You can register at the poll in some states.

            1. And you don’t have to have ID to be registered?

              Not having to prove you are a citizen to vote is madness, and voter fraud disenfranchises me when someone not eligible to vote or who votes twice cancels mine out.

              If consent of the governed is to have any force whatsoever, elections must be as fair and accurate as possible.

              1. Well, consent of the governed is a big lie anyway. I didn’t consent to any of this shit. So maybe that’s why I don’t care too much.

                1. Then give me your proxy, Zeb. In fact, everyone give me your proxy, and I’ll vote on everyone’s behalf. Like that Asimov short story.

                  1. Then give me your proxy, Zeb. In fact, everyone give me your proxy, and I’ll vote on everyone’s behalf. Like that Asimov short story.

                    Give me your proxy, and I’ll vote for Gary Johnson, bitch!

                  2. I’d be OK with you voting on my behalf.

                    1. There’s one! Just a couple hundred million to go.

            2. DMV, Post Office, Library.

              Too bad not McDonalds. Yet.

              1. Jesus, you’re right. I just realized what’s going to happen. They’re going to make fast food something you can’t purchase unless you’re 18 or older. Or maybe 21, now that I think about it.

          2. But many states, apparently in an attempt to remove any possible protection against fraud, allow registration at the polls.

        4. Because fraud prevention is a big deal in elections. We don’t let people board airplanes without ID. Many financial and other transactions require ID. I can’t remember offhand, but I bet ID has to be presented when you show up for jury duty. The list is a mile long. But voting is magically different?

          Uh, huh, this isn’t about people being deprived of the right to vote. This is about maintaining a system that is fairly easy to defraud.

          1. Well, I object to most of those other requirements for ID too. Though I like the bank to request ID before dispensing money from my account. So voting isn’t magically different for me. See my comment below for a bit more from me on the subject.
            I don’t really think that voter ID is a huge burden and I don’t lose any sleep over it. But I also doubt its effectiveness in preventing fraud (see below) along with my (possibly excessively) principled objections.

            1. I don’t have a problem with a system that allows one to live within it sans ID. But that means you might have trouble getting some stuff done.

              I mean, dont’ get me wrong, a system where no one has ID couldn’t really hold elections because there’d be no system to avoid fraud would be awesome. You see where I’m going with this?

              A system where elections can’t be held. God I think I’m getting a chubby.

              1. Or we could base it on Government Census data. After the polls close, shuffle all the votes at each precinct, and just tally ’em up until the number of recorded votes reaches the number of residents at least 18yo. There’s your official vote.

              2. Photo ID hasn’t been around for that long. Somehow elections happened back then.

                1. Photo ID hasn’t been around for that long. Somehow elections happened back then.

                  And election fraud was horrendous.

                2. And surgeries happened before anesthetic. That’s doesn’t mean there can’t be improvements.

                  1. I like the way you think, NEM.

                    Anesthetize people before they enter the voting booth.

                  2. Yeah, fair enough. But how much has the government improved since ID and other things to make elections less fraudulent have been around? I don’t think many around here will say there has been any improvement in the quality of government we get.

                    1. The quality of government is fairly hard to quantify, even more so considering all the other things that might effect it other than voters.

                    2. I guess quality is too subjective. How about extent?

                    3. I guess quality is too subjective. How about extent?

                      Still have to separate the effect of fraud from other factors. War, or the prospect of war would likely be a much bigger factor, also have to take into account that sometimes voter fraud doesn’t swing an election, it just pads the winners total.

            2. Voter fraud is probably a much bigger problem than we even suspect. Maybe we should skip the IDs and got to straight biometrics, with the act of voting (but not the ballot) captured on film.

        5. If being raised by wolves were a common factor in the voting public, I think you’d have a perfectly valid point.

          However, your terminology: “not have the right to vote” is a little sweeping. Raised-by-wolves doesn’t lack a right to vote per se, he can be issued an ID if he requests it. So it’s really a timing issue more than a no-right-to-vote issue.

          I admit that yes, in a society where we kind of want to know who you are so you don’t commit the ultimate act of violence (casting a vote) more than once, a few– a tiny few are going to be left out in the cold on occasion.

          I guess in the end, we have to decide how big our voter fraud issue is and then decide from there.

        6. Yeah, Zeb, that’s the sort of extremely unlikely scenario which proggies like to pull out. Yes, I’m totally sympathetic to the right of that hypothetical feral human to vote immediately upon joining civilization as we know it. But I’m much more concerned with the clear and present danger posed by Ms. Richardson and those like her.

          1. Would voter ID laws have stopped her? If so, how? She was the poll worker and presumably would be the one to be checking IDs.

            1. Hard to say, depending on technology and how it’s used. While I’m willing to admit it may not have stopped her, it might have gotten her caught more quickly.

              But at this point, there’s a lot of question-begging in that.

              If we don’t (read: stop) requiring ID to register to vote and vote, then what is the value of a vote?

              1. I don’t know. What is the value of a vote now?

                1. I don’t know. What is the value of a vote now?

                  Based on my quick math, Richardson’s vote was worth 5, mine was worth -4.

            2. In AZ election booths are required to have poll watchers from both major parties (ideally, from more than the two major parties if possible) to prevent such a situation from arising.

            3. When I go to vote there are always two poll workers servicing each line of voters. So they’d have to be working together which would be conspiracy and would ratchet up their liability considerably.

              YMMV in other jurisdictions.

        7. I am a citizen

          So you say.

          1. Well, all that is requred to be a citizen is that you are born or naturalized in the US. Naturalized will obviously have some paperwork to prove it, but natural born citizens won’t necessarily.

            What we should really do is make government very small so it doesn’t have much effect on one’s everyday life or matter much who is elected, then we don’t have to worry about this anymore. But most of us already knew that.

            1. No one argues with this, which means you’re going down my road of creating a system where voting isn’t really required because it doesn’t do anything and no one shows up to run for elections anyway.

              All of our candidates should be raised by wolves…

              1. Yes, that is exactly what I want.

    2. Racist! It’s okay to demand multiple forms of ID for everything else (I had to cough up four documents at the DMV this morning), but voting is completely different.

      1. I have to bring two forms of ID to a job interview I’m having Monday, in addition to four references from people who know me.

        Republicans should call voter ID laws ‘The New Emancipation Act.’ We’re going to make sure that black people have IDs so that they can do important things like get a job, or apply for a mortgage.

        Why do liberals want black people to be unemployed and homeless?

        1. Voting and DMV are interactions between citizens and the government, and are thus everyone’s business. Job interviews are interactions between private parties; thus not my business.

        2. Why do liberals want black people to be unemployed and homeless?

          Because the unemployed and homeless are their base.

        3. Why do liberals want black people to be unemployed and homeless?

          Who would be left to vote Democrat?

    3. I get IDed when I vote. I fail to see the problem. I mean, they are registered, right? That’s about as much trouble as getting an ID that is really pretty important to have in interactions with the police or to just navigate everyday life (SLD). Make them free if cost is the objection. But if the problem is dragging your ass down the DMV and getting you picture taken, I truly do not give a shit if you vote or not.

      1. You would think liberals would want to encourage people to get IDs. I can’t think of a single other instance where liberals have a problem with people registering with the government.

        I have no doubt they would be all about requiring everyone have an Obamacare ID, just as long as it was only required for healthcare not voting.

      2. I like to turn this around and ask the proggie how many of these low-income, rideless people he’s helped by giving them rides to the DMV.

    4. Is it anti-libertarian to demand that when someone shows up to the polls that they ask him or her for some simple ID?

      I don’t think so. If you want to participate, prove to me that you’re a citizen eligible to participate.

      To do the opposite to me would be like checking your coat then bitching when they ask you for the ticket.

    5. Is it anti-libertarian to demand that when someone shows up to the polls that they ask him or her for some simple ID?

      No, because voting is inherently an action related to government. Requiring someone to have a government ID in order to vote for who will be in government strikes me as totally reasonable.

    6. I’m appalled by your bigotry,

      1. I’m appalled that you are merely appalled and not horrified.

        1. I am shocked — shocked! — by your lack of appallitude and horrification of your own meta-ness, and voter ID.

          1. I’m bewildered by the tepidness of your chastisement.

            1. Do you have identification proving that you are, in fact, said bewildered person?

              1. I’m too bewildered to produce it.

                1. I’m too bewildered to produce it

                  The Democratic party welcomes you!

  13. Voter fraud is a right-wing meme.

    /Progtard

  14. It’s only fraud when Rethuglickins win.

    1. She was actually helping to fulfill the General Will.

      1. That’s right. Correctly applied fraud transcends the minuteness of the individual transgression to serve the greater good of the volont? g?n?rale. By definition, the general will of the people is good, so no evil committed to advance that general will can, in fact, be evil.

        1. Hegelian synthesis! You are objectively irrational for opposing the Geist General Will!

          1. Glad that’s all settled.

  15. Of course, it’s perfectly ok to demand ID in transactions between private groups. /progderp

    1. I mean, require private groups to demand ID. Of course a private group can decide that on its own.

      1. You shouldn’t be able to give your son a handgun without going to an FFL and having a criminal background check done. But how fucking dare anyone ask you for a picture ID before voting.

        1. I’d also consider the vote far more dangerous than the handgun.

        2. People do exist who object to both of those things.

      2. Not in proggie-land, Meta. Private groups can only act in fashions approved by the state. Nothing against the state, nothing outside the state, everything for the state.

  16. I think this just means libertarians need MORE voter fraud. Everyone needs more voter fraud! Then it will even out and cost less money in policing it!

  17. So, has anyone ever conducted a study of VF convictions to see where they occurred and which party they favored (and how often they involved government officials as opposed to voters themselves)? Maybe Congress should commission such a study, since it apparently needs to update the VRA. Surely voter fraud disenfranchises someone as surely as a poll test.

    1. I suspect that Congress won’t touch this because if the results were politically inconvenient it would be called a racist study.

      1. Well, if for some reason the GOP won the Senate and House…. They’re going to be called racist anyway, and any bad publicity would be brief, unlike the partisan advantage. I think they would be willing, but that doesn’t mean they would be able or clever enough.

  18. I thought black people were allowed to vote more than once for a black person running for president. Isn’t it part of that reparations deal, like Affirmative Action?

  19. Well, I seem to be about the only person around here who is not enthusiastically in support of voter ID laws. Calling them racist is just plain stupid. But there are other real reasons not to love such laws. Some people don’t have ID. True, they could get one easily, but what if they don’t? I think they still have the right to vote. And there are people who are natural born citizens but don’t have a birth certificate or other proof of who they are and for those people getting ID would be a lot more difficult. The cases like that are very few, but I like to judge laws on the worst possible effects they can possibly have, not on they typical effects. If a law screws just one person, it is a bad law.

    And how much effect on voter fraud would voter ID laws really have? Would it have prevented it in this case? Or in any case involving absentee ballots (I’d think that having to show ID would kind of defeat the point of an absentee ballot and in any case, there is still no way to verify who filled it in).
    It all also seems to rely on honest poll workers, which is probably the greatest weakness. If you are talking about corrupt poll workers, which probably makes up the vast majority of voter fraud, what is to stop them from looking at an ID and letting the person vote under someone else’s name anyway?

    1. What am I, chopped liver?

      1. Not as far as I can tell. It’s hard to keep track of everyone around here.

        1. I make fucking awesome chopped liver, for the record.

    2. Some people don’t have ID

      Some people are not registered. And if you are not registered, you can’t vote. How is requiring you to register any more of an imposition than making you have an ID? It would seem to be more of one since everyone has an ID for other purposes. But registering to vote only allows you to vote. You wouldn’t do it otherwise.

      So do you also object to registration? If not, why not? If the standard is “some people don’t like to do this”, then I don’t see how you can require registration.

      Lastly, no one who is eligible to vote doesn’t have an ID. That is just a myth. Even homeless people have IDs in this day and age.

      1. Lastly, no one who is eligible to vote doesn’t have an ID. That is just a myth. Even homeless people have IDs in this day and age.

        Ok, so why don’t we just take it to the next step and put two .38 slugs into the brain of federalism and institute a national ID. I mean you need ID to do anything nowadays, right?

        1. What does saying states should require IDs have to do with federalism? No one is saying the feds should do this. The states should do this. And last I looked, every state had a state ID system.

          1. No one is saying the feds should do this

            You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows…

            1. So because the feds doing it is bad, the states shouldn’t either? By that logic the states should repeal all of their murder laws. I don’t need a weather man to know which way the wind blows to see having the states prosecute murder is going to lead to federal murder laws.

              Stop it.

              1. So because the feds doing it is bad, the states shouldn’t either? By that logic the states should repeal all of their murder laws

                Yes, because those laws against a malum in seare fully equivalent to a law against an action that is malum prohibitum. What was your LSAT score again?

                Besides, don’t get angry that, unlike you, the powers that be aren’t playing me like harp from hell. I’m not the one wanting to kill federalism because a woman voted for Obama for a total of six (gasp!) times out of a total 125,000,000.

                1. Why the fuck would states their elections and deciding on their own to run fair elections by requiring IDs, kill federalism? That makes no sense.

                2. A state deciding on its own election laws has no implication for federalism. Sheesh.

                  1. A state deciding on its own election laws has no implication for federalism.

                    That’s what they told us with every education reform law and look where were are now.

                    1. Irrelevant.

                3. Voter fraud is a malum in se crime by the very terms of the word “fraud”.

                  1. Voter fraud is a malum in se crime by the very terms of the word “fraud”.

                    Really?

                    Gestapo: Herr Kochtopus, where is Frauline Frank?
                    NK: *points to attic stairs*

                    1. What? Just pointing out you aren’t using the terminology correctly.

                    2. No, I am. You’re the one who is mistaken. Rape is a crime that is always wrong, because it is inherently immoral. Defrauding someone is a crime because it is prohibited by law. The act of lying is morally neutral, sometimes it is immoral, but in the example I used above, it would be a moral act to lie to the Gestapo.

                    3. Defraud in the normal sense has the default stance that it is morally wrong.

                      While I agree, lying can be seen as morally neutral, by your logic, killing is also morally neutral.

                      But normally, when someone is killed, we believe by default and are usually correct that some crime was committed.

                      You can use the same logic with stealing from the Nazis as well.

                    4. No, I am. You’re the one who is mistaken. Rape is a crime that is always wrong, because it is inherently immoral. Defrauding someone is a crime because it is prohibited by law. The act of lying is morally neutral, sometimes it is immoral, but in the example I used above, it would be a moral act to lie to the Gestapo.

                    5. Don’t forget the possibility of alien invasion. If aliens invade, that changes everything!

                4. Besides, don’t get angry that, unlike you, the powers that be aren’t playing me like harp from hell. I’m not the one wanting to kill federalism because a woman voted for Obama for a total of six (gasp!) times out of a total 125,000,000.

                  How many of those 125,000,000 votes were legitimate? We don’t know, because we’re not required to know.

                  And again, I really don’t see asking someone to identify themselves before committing an act of violence is “killing federalism”. That seems to be a lot of hyperbole.

        2. All of the ID laws I’ve heard of thus far are state-level initiatives…

        3. I’m waiting for my career chip to be stabbed into my palm.

        4. I think a lot of my opposition to this sort of thing is exactly because you need an ID to do just about anything these days. That doesn’t make it OK.
          Why the fuck do they need to know my name to let me on a plane? Just make sure I don’t have any weapons on me and let me on. Why should a cop be entitled to ask me who I am if I am not driving a car? Why should a bar tender get to know my name and address just so I can get a drink? And this shit is just going to get worse. Soon you’ll need ID to get on a bus or train. Everyone already needs ID, so what’s the big deal?

          1. Why should a cop be entitled to ask me who I am if I am not driving a car?

            By your language and how you crafted this sentence, I take it that you’re ok with requiring an ID if you are driving a car?

        5. Does nobody realize that we already have a national ID? Granted you don’t have to carry it domestically, but it’s still plenty useful should you choose to.

          1. Which can be tied directly to your national mortgage, and your national education lenders, your national NSA file, and coming soon – your national health care records.

      2. There have got to be other ways to register people to vote without ID or at least traditional ID. Or at least ways to cut down on fraud without requiring it.
        All I can think of is a sharpie’d mark on your hand once you vote, but I’ve been thinking about this maybe 5 minutes.

        1. Purple finger dye?

        2. That’s where I was trying to go above, but wasn’t being very effective. I believe there are simple ways to keep Raised-by-Wolves from voting sixteen times without providing him with WWII style Reich Paperwork which is what Zeb seems to be worried about. I mean, it’s good to be worried about that, and one should always keep an eye out for it.

          But we all have some sort of ID here– I’m not even asking for a NEW kind of ID, just use the existing ID that Zeb and I already have to, you know, check your name off a list when you commit that great act of violence the first time. I don’t believe any of that even requires a German accent.

      3. How is requiring you to register any more of an imposition than making you have an ID?

        Apparently, you’re not required to register, which is the problem. You just show up and start pulling levers.

    3. Frankly, I think massive fraud has been going on in some counties of some states for a very long time. It’s entrenched. Requiring IDs would help make it harder to do, at least.

      Most of the fraud that’s been uncovered has been on the Democratic side of the fence, over the years, but I’m sure both sides do it. Otherwise, the GOP would go on a voter fraud-prevention rampage during the years it’s in power.

      I do agree that requiring IDs of voters is not a complete answer. There are many ways to commit fraud in this system.

    4. If you are talking about corrupt poll workers, which probably makes up the vast majority of voter fraud, what is to stop them from looking at an ID and letting the person vote under someone else’s name anyway?

      The existence of poll watchers from both parties watching what they are doing. Requiring IDs means making you corrupt the poll workers and the people from the parties who watch them. That is pretty hard and a hell of a lot harder than getting someone to come up and say they are someone else.

      Voter fraud is an art form. What the campaigns do is find out who is not going to vote. Collect the names of as many of those people as possible and then send their workers out to cast votes in those people’s names. Without an ID requirement there is no way to stop that.

      1. As I recall, during the last presidential election, in voter districts that were heavily favoring Obama, Poll watchers from the evil TEA party, or republicans, I cant remember which, were removed from the polling places.

        I also vaguely remember one such district voting 100% for Obama. Not a single vote for Mittens.

        If I werent so lazy I would look it up.

        1. it was actually 59 districts in Philadelphia where Mittens received precisely zero votes.

          1. That’s a huge red flag, of course, but the Brennan Center tells us that vote fraud isn’t a problem, so we should all just move along….

    5. Some people don’t have ID. True, they could get one easily, but what if they don’t?

      Then they have chosen not to vote?

      Seriously, I’m having a hard time finding any objection to voter ID that doesn’t apply equally to voer registration.

      If you are opposed in principle to any law that might inhibit anyone from voting anywhere at any time, then you might as well pass out Presidential ballots like they do All-Star ballots.

      1. If you are opposed in principle to any law that might inhibit anyone from voting anywhere at any time, then you might as well pass out Presidential ballots like they do All-Star ballots.

        Why not? The President is not supposed to be elected by direct popular vote but by the various legislatures of each state in a manner of their choosing. There is nothing forcing a state electors to follow the popular vote. A state could legislate the choosing of electors based on the outcome of an oil wrestling match, if they wished.

        1. Given that most states don’t have an interest in pissing off their population, that’s not going to happen.

          1. I am not so sure Neo. Given the bread and circuses mentality so prevalent today I think that might depend on the choice of oil wrestling contestants.

          2. And yet, there have been times when states have appointed electors without an election, and there have been electors “faithless electors” that have voted differently than the popular vote in their state mandated.

            1. And it’s always kind of a big deal.

              No state in the Union is going to say, “Fuck you, Majority. Your vote means nothing to us.”

              1. No state in the Union is going to say, “Fuck you, Majority. Your vote means nothing to us.”

                Yeah, it is sad that our representative republic was replaced with mob-rule democracy.

      2. No matter what is said about it, there is only one objection to voter ID. It makes voter fraud more difficult.

        1. Actually, I have several different objections which you will find at various places in this thread. I totally see why people do support it. But it’s not such an obvious no-brainer.

    6. The cases like that are very few, but I like to judge laws on the worst possible effects they can possibly have, not on they typical effects. If a law screws just one person, it is a bad law.

      While I understand the impetus, this isn’t a conceptually sound way to approach lawmaking. Almost every law requires a trade-off — even laws which grant freedoms to individuals. The free market is, on the whole, an excellent vehicle to lift people out of poverty as well as being a moral institution. A move from the current system to a freer market would also “screw” a whole bunch of people.

      I don’t see how you can approach policy coherence in such a light without having extremely ideological preconceptions about the effects of your favored legislation.

      I can say that in AZ, where I worked as a poll worker for an election, it’s a very straightforward and accommodating process.

      1. even laws which grant protect the freedoms to of individuals

        For shame. Now turn in your Libertarian Purity Certification.

        1. Do I have to? They made me turn in my Libertarian Decoder Ring and Capitalist Running Dog tote bag last week!

    7. Zeb, you have a really good point as far as pure principle is concerned. But even here there are a lot of people who just aren’t as pure as you are, and see nothing wrong with the ID requirement as voter fraud is a greater problem (one potentially affecting more people) than your theoretical people without birth certificates.

      Also, the number of people without birth certificates is increasingly small. Even my grandmother (born at home) had one issued after the fact. The vast majority of people are born in hospitals, and for the crunchy set the midwife helps with all the paperwork.

      1. On pure principle, if you are going to engage in a government process, then you need to have a government ID.

        1. How do you figure that?

          1. You’re voting to sustain the use of force of the United States Government. I’m entitled to ensure, at a minimum, that you’re entitled to do that.

            1. Usually I vote to reduce the use of force of the US government.

              1. Reduce, yes, but even when you vote for Gary Johnson, you’re vote says, “I want you, Gary Johnson, to have the powers of the President”

              2. Usually I vote to reduce the use of force of the US government.

                And from the ProgTard perspective, you’re a violent racist for doing that.

            2. What identification did people have to show to vote for George Washington?

              Birth certificates? Nope. Your birth was usually registered by a church and the government didn’t get involved into the late 19th century.

              Passport? Yes, they existed back then, but you only had them if you were traveling out of the country.

              Driver’s licence? C’mon son.

              Somehow, our republic managed to exist and flourish before the invention of the daguerreotype.

              1. argumentum ad antiquitatem

                1. Much more succinct than my response.

                2. No…establishing a counterexample that existed in the past is not a logical fallacy. Indeed, that’s how the process of inductive reasoning works, so I don’t see how a fallacy of deductive reasoning helps your case.

              2. Uh, dude, it’s not 1776 any more.

                Back then, as you doubtlessly know, there were no IDs. Voter fraud was controlled by onlookers and poll workers; if I showed up claiming to be TIT, I’d be recognized and bounced (or worse).

                So not really sure what you’re getting at.

                1. Nah Tonio, I think he’s got a point. At least having zero voter ID laws would let everyone vote as many times as they want. The most determined would win!

                  Think about the libertopia we’d create.

                  1. I really didn’t mean this sarcastically. No voter ID laws wouldn’t really be that bad.

                  2. And keep polls open all the time. Anytime you want to you can go and vote for or against any sitting politician. Once votes against outnumber votes for, they get removed from office.

                2. You’re right, it’s not 1776. Somehow, we managed to stay a viable nation-state for 236 years with a certain level of voter fraud.

                  Voter fraud was controlled by onlookers and poll workers; if I showed up claiming to be TIT, I’d be recognized and bounced (or worse).

                  And that’s pretty much how it works in my ward…what’s your point?

                  1. You’re right, it’s not 1776. Somehow, we managed to stay a viable nation-state for 236 years with a certain level of voter fraud.

                    And the country was just fine for ~200 years without jet airliners, and was fine for ~190 without large scale enfranchisement of the black vote.

              3. What identification did people have to show to vote for George Washington?

                This is actually a good question. This is where some historical perspective is in order.

                Elections were essentially different affairs back then– voting limited generally to prominent members of society, property owners, existing elected officials, etc.

                For instance:

                April 26, 1607, by their calendar?the commanders of the 105 colonists unsealed a box containing a secret list of seven men picked in England to be the colony’s council and from among whom the councilors were to pick a president.

                When you’re in a very closed system and everyone knows everyone, that’s your ID.

                The modern notion of 200 million strangers from all demographics casting votes is… rather novel.

                Also:

                Typically, white, male property owners twenty-one or older could vote. Some colonists not only accepted these restrictions but also opposed broadening the franchise.

                Again, to be a white, male property owner suggested that by definition, you were a permanent resident in good standing. Not someone who wandered over a border the week before looking for landscaping work.

                contd…

                1. Now, the first thing people are going to do is say, “See? Racism, Paul doesn’t want dirty mexicans to vote”.

                  No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m merely saying that if we’re going to have a system where you have to be a citizen of the country (either born or naturalized) and you can’t be a felon, and you can only vote once, we need some kind of method to control the process.

      2. That’s why I’m not calling everyone who is for the ID laws evil assholes. I can see the pragmatic reason why people would think it is a good idea. As I’ve said, I don’t lose any sleep over it. I’m much more concerned about other ways we are creeping toward mandatory national ID (or a functional equivalent) and places where we must identify ourselves where it really is not relevant who we are.
        It probably also has a bit to do with the fact that I have done all of my voting in small towns where the poll workers know who I am. Why the fuck should they need to see my ID?

        1. That’s why I’m not calling everyone who is for the ID laws evil assholes.

          You should. Reason comment threads are much more entertaining with a healthy dose of self-righteous hyperbole and literary snarling.

    8. I’m not in favor of ID laws, but I’m not strongly against them either.

      1. Way to Straddle the line, Bill Clinton!

        1. No straddling. I’m not convinced we need them, so I’m not for them. But I’m not convinced that having them is some great injustice either, so having those laws wouldn’t bother me that much.

        2. I was against them before I was for them.

  20. Here’s the deal: voter fraud is highly localized. In AZ, voter fraud was only a problem in one Congressional district: AZ-03. However, it was a major problem, and our voter fraud laws helped to rectify the situation.

    Mostly it is a problem in inner cities, but where it’s a problem it’s a big problem, and tips the balance of statewide races as well as clinching the vote in certain districts.

    1. There was a case back in the late ’80s (IIRC), a race for the governor of Maryland. It looked like the Republican would win, but lo and behold, at the last minute a huge number of votes got reported from Baltimore, and the (D) won.

      1. Not to mention how a bunch of votes showed up in Seattle to tip the governor’s race to the Democrat a few years back.

  21. Of course, the real issue is time spent on partisan voter registration drives. Not only will ACORN-type groups have to go door to door to beg people to register and pick them up and drive them to the polls on election day, now they also have to make sure they have valid ID, which means a hand-holding trip to the DMV.

    I know it makes me a monster, but someone that can’t be bothered to register to vote, have an ID, and make it to a polling place has no business deciding what rights the government is going to allow me to exercise.

    1. And if you get someone to register whom you know is very unlikely to vote, you have their name and address and can send one of your people to vote for them.

    2. Sug, I totally agree with you that the methed-out trailer park welfare mom is the last person we want voting, so shed no tears if she can’t get it together enough to register to vote.

      But I’m honestly concerned with people like the nice old lady who works in my parking deck. I think she’s (sheltered) homeless, or close to it. She works long hours, has no car, and registration and voting would be a problem. I’ll be the first to admit this is one data point (anecdotal, if you will).

      1. But I’m honestly concerned with people like the nice old lady who works in my parking deck. I think she’s (sheltered) homeless, or close to it

        Appeal to emotion.

        Seriously; if she’s made such bad decisions in her life, do you want her having a say in how *your* life is run?

      2. What’s a parking deck?

      3. Completely late reply… I’m not against people helping someone like that (I’m not against private citizens helping other private citizen’s at all, of course), but those that have to be brow-beaten to register, can’t be bothered to obtain a cheap or even free ID and refuse to walk, bike, drive, take a bus, etc and must be picked up and barely short of dragged to the polls are the people I don’t care about. That is what ACORN and the others are out doing and it is naked political and partisan. They have the right to do it, but I sure don’t care about making their “jobs” any easier.

    3. I know it makes me a monster, but someone that can’t be bothered to register to vote, have an ID, and make it to a polling place has no business deciding what rights the government is going to allow me to exercise.

      No, that part is pretty reasonable. You were already a monster for different reasons.

  22. OT: Bernanke says he is ‘not qualified’ to offer refinancing advice…

    I’d go a bit further and say he’s not qualified to offer any advice.

  23. Consider the following scenario:

    Say someone shows up to vote on my behalf, claiming that I am too sick to leave home and that I’ve empowered that person to vote in my stead.

    If what the person is saying is true but he is not allowed to cast a vote for me, then I have had my voting rights infringed in like manner to those who can’t vote because they have no ID (perhaps more so, since getting ID is much easier than healing oneself).

    Yet, we have determined that such scenarios are rare and that the potential for fraud in allowing for my vote to be cast in that way is high enough to justify a rejection of said vote. Infringement of rights, or no?

    1. There are lots of things you cannot empower other people to do. No bank is required to honor a power of attorney. You certainly have a right to dispose of your property. But that doesn’t mean you have a right to have an agent do it for you.

      Or what if I have a claim against IMT. I am sick or busy or don’t feel like going to court that day. So I send someone to go in my stead and testify what I planned to testify to. And this person is telling the truth. Shouldn’t I be able to do this?

      This because this scenario is rare doesn’t mean we should require claimants to actually show up in court. Right?

    2. That’s pretty hypothetical, TIT. I know of no jurisdiction that allows voting by proxie. The situation you describe is handled by absentee ballots.

      1. That’s my point. Disallowing voting by proxy is at least as much an infringement to people in the situation I described as is obtaining voter ID for those who don’t have said ID. (Absentee ballots are an option for both groups of people, after all.)

        1. If you can vote by absentee ballot, your right to vote is not infringed.

    3. Say someone shows up to vote on my behalf, claiming that I am too sick to leave home and that I’ve empowered that person to vote in my stead.

      I doubt there are very many instances of people being too sick to vote who cannot obtain an absentee ballot. Sure, some guy will break both his legs and be in surgery that day, and that really sucks that he doesn’t get his vote counted, but realistically he only had about a 50% likelihood of voting to start with, so sucks to be him.

      Also, if you’re too sick to vote, you’re probably too drugged up to make a rational decision anyways and probably should abstain.

      1. There are also very few circumstances where a photo ID would be so difficult to obtain and provide that it could be considered a meaningful restriction.

        Also, if you’re too sick to vote, you’re probably too drugged up to make a rational decision anyways and probably should abstain.

        If you’re too dumb or socially isolated to get an ID, you’re probably too ill-informed to make a rational decision anyways and probably should abstain.

        1. If you’re too dumb or socially isolated to get an ID, you’re probably too ill-informed to make a rational decision anyways and probably should abstain.

          Also yes.

          1. If you have a history of voting for democrat or republican candidates, YOU ARE too ill-informed to make a rational decision.

  24. I didnt read the comments yet, but just in case no one else mentioned this, I will.

    “Robinson previously said she would fight the charges to defend Obama’s “right to sit as president of the United States.”

    That is correct. Barack Obama has a right, not to be eligible for the office of president like anyone else, but a right to BE president. She was protecting shitweasel’s divine right to be king.

    1. Yes, and we need to hammer this, and the cheating angle, but do so in such a way as to avoid demonizing her. Not because she doesn’t deserve it, but because they will try everything to make us appear racist.

      1. They’ll do it regardless.

  25. We need as many people voting for the Democrats as possible to prevent another Republican disaster in the White House.

    1. Because a Democrat disaster is preferable to a Republican disaster.

  26. “It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes.”
    -Joseph Stalin

    I would trust the typical progressive “poll worker” about as far as I could throw him.

    1. Wasn’t it Boss Tweed that said that?

      1. Boss Hog.

    2. Uncle Joe knew that democracy is a big heaping pile of borschtshit.

  27. I am going to auction my vote off for 2014. That way I can see what the market value of a vote actually is. It is not worth anything to me since the libertarian party only gets approximately 1 percent of the vote. If I get 1 penny it is a net profit to me. I hope living in a swing state will make it more valuable.

    1. Pretty sure there’s some federal law where they lock you up in federal pound me in the ass prison forever if you do that, but I’m curious too.

      Vote for sale!

  28. Why the fuck are you posting about this stuff when PEOPLE ARE STILL TALKING ABOUT ZIMMERMAN/MARTIN??!!!!

    RACIST!!

    Also – fried chicken

    1. I hate people?

      oh wait, I is people.

    2. Is there such a thing as watermelon-fried chicken? If not, there should be. Someone get on that right away.

  29. Voter fraud is ridiculously easy.

    In 1996 I had moved to PA from NJ. I voted for Harry Brown for President in PA, then drove back to NJ to watch the returns with my dad.

    Just for fun I went to the polls in my home town just to see if they would let me vote.

    Sure enough I was still listed and they gave me a ballot. This time I voted for Dole, not because I agreed with anything he said, but because he got shot up by Nazis and was bleeding in the snow some 50 years before.

    1. One might not want to make public mention of felonies one has committed…

  30. We know that voter fraud is rare because (some) polls got the outcome nearly exactly right in every state. Splashing one case all over Drudge Report kind of proves the case. If this were a problem rampant enough to pay the price of suppressing the vote by requiring ID and other latter-day poll taxes, then we’d hear about it more often. Voter suppression is the real problem, not voter fraud. That’s just the lame excuse given for the former.

    1. the infamous 50 some districts reporting 0 votes for Romney doesn’t make you at least scratch your head a little bit?

      And no, I’m not even trying to make the case that all fraud is on the (D) side (which is where I believe most of it exists because of notoriously corrupt D strongholds such as Chicago/Cook County where Voter Fraud is a hallowed tradition passed down from Teacher to Student), I’m just saying that we keep saying that voter fraud is rare, but we have no metric to determine if the votes we have are legitimate.

      Voter suppression may be a real problem, but I don’t see that problem tethered to ID.

    2. Look over there!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.