The Boys Who Cried Voter Fraud
The New York Times reports that the Bush Administration modified a report on the 2006 elections, in which experts agreed that there was little evidence of voter fraud. The “edited” version now said there was “debate” on the subject.
This is hardly surprising–it’s been a GOP tactic for years to drum up allegations of voter fraud to depress turnout and deter legitimate voters from being heard in our democratic system. All the evidence affirms that voter fraud simply isn’t a major problem in contemporary America, and that it pales in comparison to the disenfranchising harms done by policies enacted in the name of combatting this mythical fraud. And, lest any current Bush scandal escape the taint of the Attorney Purge, the lack of pursuit of these bogus fraud cases is popping in the firing of at least two US Attorneys (in New Mexico and Oregon). That’s bad enough. But if we’re going to debate this issue, we should be aware too not just of its present, but of its past in America. The use of formally neutral voter suppression tactics was a key element in maintaining White supremacy, and it is this legacy that drives the drafting of their contemporary cousins.
Share This
I think the Bush administration is one big sleazy and corrupt and criminal organization.
However, I live about an hour from Chicago and we have had a long history of our dead voting.
In 2000, 2002 and 2004 wasn’t it the Democrats that cried voter fraud? Now it’s the GOP. Funny how when the Democrats complained about it the GOP lead executive branch didn’t find any, and Republicans used that as the sole evidence the issue was contrived. Now that the shoe is on the other foot the executive branch finds “debate” on the issue, but the Democrats want to hold up that there is no longer any voter fraud. Nothing fundamentally changed in the last eight years so the issue we had in 2000 and 2004 were still there in 2006 and need to be fixed.
I have a lot of trouble believing that the anecdotal history of chicago vote machines isn’t coloring the modern day perception.
When it comes to Fraud Allegations, obviously you are taking infinitesimal greater risk if you side with republicans than another party. Not only will the allegations be most likely true, but they are likely to blame YOU for the fraud as the dragnet tightens.
Democrats didn’t cry voter fraud. They “cried” voter disenfranchisement. The former is people who shouldn’t be allowed to vote, being allowed to vote. The latter is people who should have been allowed to vote, not being allowed to vote. This really isn’t that complex.
Admittedly, part of their critique was that the standards were being applied unevenly–people in Republican areas were given more leiniant standards than Democratic areas. But the substance of the critique still was focusing on disenfranchisement.
It doesn’t matter if you are Dem or Rep, history is the guide.
Voter fraud has existed since the founding of our country. Some very popular politicians initially got voted in that way, or used it to stay in office.
Why would anyone think it doesn’t exist now? To me, the amusing contrast is that, as a generalization, Republicans are accused of election fraud by negation, and Democrats by ballot stuffing techniques.
In the end, the result is the normally same, that the level of fraud is within the margins of error or victory, and don’t materially affect the outcome.
But in very close races, it does.
Nobody denies that there exist cases of fraud. But the empirical data is staggering–for whatever reason, it happens very rarely, and is a problem we’ve got under control. I don’t “think it doesn’t exist now,” but I am convinced it occurs in such small numbers as to meaningless even in relatively tight races. The data is–overwhelmingly–on the side of the proposition that disenfranchisement is a more serious concern by several orders of magnitude.
What was notable about the Bush administration’s emphasis on prosecuting voter fraud, was that USA’s were urged to aggressively go after Democrats in order to overturn or influence close elections. When there wasn’t enough evidence to prosecute, as in Washington State, the USA was deemed to not be loyal enough, and was fired. Meanwhile civil rights cases and cases of voter suppression were prosecuted less frequently.
> Why would anyone think it doesn’t exist now?
> To me, the amusing contrast is that, as a
> generalization, Republicans are accused of
> election fraud by negation, and Democrats by
> ballot stuffing techniques.
Checking for a valid ID is not “disenfranchisement” or “suppression,” no matter how some might want to have others believe otherwise.
DLS, if you’re not going to follow the links, you’re going to continue to make spectacularly ill-informed “additions” to the discussions. Voter ID laws deter 1000 legal votes for every 1 fradulent vote they stop. That’s a bad ratio.
AustinRoth- Stop it. You’re breaking my American image. Oh the pain.