"A Rigged Report on U.S. Voting?"

Things like this are no longer surprising, though they should be. This isn't the first rigged report from this administration, and it won't be the last:

A Rigged Report on U.S. Voting?, by By Tova Andrea Wang, Commentary, Washington Post: After the 2000 Florida election debacle, Congress established ... the Election Assistance Commission to improve voting and democracy in this country. Two years ago, the commission approached me about doing a project that would take a preliminary look at voter fraud and intimidation...

Because my approach to election issues tends to be more closely aligned with Democrats, I was paired with a Republican co-author. To further remove any taint of partisanship, my co-author and I convened a bipartisan working group to help us. We spent a year doing research and consulting with leaders in the field to produce a draft report. What happened next seems inexplicable. After submitting the draft in July 2006, we were barred by the commission's staff from having anything more to do with it. ...

In all the time we were doing our research and drafting the report, neither the staff nor the commissioners, who were continually advised of our ... work, raised any concerns...

Yet, after sitting on the draft for six months, the EAC publicly released a report -- citing it as based on work by me and my co-author -- that completely stood our own work on its head.

Consider the title. Whereas the commission is mandated by law to study voter fraud and intimidation, this new report was titled simply "Election Crimes" and excluded a wide range of serious offenses that harm the system and suppress voting but are not currently crimes under the U.S. criminal code.

We said that our preliminary research found widespread agreement among ... experts from all points on the political spectrum that allegations of fraud through voter impersonation at polling places were greatly exaggerated. ... The commission chose instead to state that the issue was a matter of considerable debate. And while we found that problems of voter intimidation were still prevalent in a variety of forms, the commission excluded much of the discussion of voter intimidation.

We also raised questions about the way the Justice Department was handling complaints of fraud and intimidation. The commission excised all references to the department that might be construed as critical -- or that Justice officials later took issue with. And all of the suggestions we received from political scientists and other scholars regarding methodologies for a more scientifically rigorous look at these problems were omitted. ...

What was behind the strange handling of our report? It's still unclear, but it is worth noting that during the time the commission was holding our draft, claims about voter fraud and efforts to advance the cause of strict voter identification laws were at a fever pitch in Congress and the states. And it has been reported that some U.S. attorneys were being fired because they failed to pursue weakly supported voter fraud cases with sufficient zeal.

We have learned that several Republican officials, including a state official, a former political appointee at the Justice Department and current Federal Election Commission member (Hans Von Spakovsky), and a Capitol Hill staffer complained about our project, particularly about my role in it. Officials at Justice were actively involved in the report throughout ... and even exerted some degree of editorial control... And it is evident from the commission's "document dump" that its Republican general counsel assumed primary control over the rewriting of the report. ...

This is not the way an institution created to promote democracy should function. A government entity that seeks democratic progress should be transparent. It should not be in the business of suppressing information or ideas. Such an institution must be thoroughly insulated from political interference from outside operatives or other parts of the executive branch.

We need an institution like the Election Assistance Commission to provide guidance and research information to the states, election officials, elected leaders and voters. But this agency's structure and procedures need to be seriously reexamined in light of this episode...

Comments

[reason]

It is not that it is not surprising that bothers me, it is that it is not seen as a big deal. I mean this is fundamental isn't it. Or does the USA LIKE the idea that it is a banana (or should that be sugar cane) republic?

[Don Quijote]

Or does the USA LIKE the idea that it is a banana (or should that be sugar cane) republic?

It's not a matter of liking or disliking, the USA has become a Banana Republic. Our Elites, with the end of the Soviet Union & Communism, tired of dealing with Democracy have decided to treat the US the way they have treated Latin America.

[Loken]

["Things like this are no longer surprising, though they should be..."]

What's surprising is the endless faith in politicians & government bureaucrats to do the right thing... despite centuries of evidence to the contrary.

[reason]

Loken...
please explain how your comment is not nihilism. It is also nonsense, if politicians and beurocrats did not sometimes behave better, how come we have noticed when they don't.

[im1dc]

Actually this is quite surprising and very serious. It was also much thought of by our Founding Fathers, specifically Alexander Hamiltion, James Madison and John Jay who collaborated to write the "Federalist Papers" to explain what the Constitutional Convention meant by the rewriting the Articles of Confederation into the US Constitution.

In particular they did not want the Chief Executive to become so powerful that the President would become Royal like in power thereby humbling and suppressing all vocal opposition to the Executives policies from within the government.

Indeed, this is another item of Impeachment, if Congress were doing its job.

Serious indeed.

[calmo]

I appreciate your frustration here reason --such a hopeful sign that blood is still getting to all parts of the brain. Now I'm not sayin that Loken has suffered a small stroke that reduces his view of human history to a Bernard Shaw-like series of anecdotes about how politicians eat babies.
No.
I think blood is still getting to all parts of Loken's brain too, just amplifying the (our) frustration: the power to act collectively/effectively against political abuse is managed by those sources of abuse.

[RW]

Don Quijote, yes I think that is true: I have thought for some time that those who identified recrudescent US aggression as imperialism or colonialism were only half correct. What we are seeing is a revised form of colonialism primarily intended to subjugate and exploit the mother country; assaults upon other countries are ancillary events to, for example, keep the US populace distracted by war while enhancing opportunities for profit.

Our apparent inability to free ourselves from this trend worries me greatly. There is an old Prussian expression, die flucht nach vorne antreten (to take flight forward), that I think describes what is needed now: We must decisively free ourselves from a situation where it is not possible to simply withdraw. I have stated elsewhere that I think such a move includes the impeachment of the current administration as well as prosecution of its cronies and repudiation of the policies that enrich them (or cripple us), from the Iraq war/occupation to exploitable voting equipment, but regardless it must begin somewhere or we risk losing more than we realize; e.g., Bush & Cheney may leave but their policies and precedents will remain. JMO

[calmo]

Bravo RW.
And so, are we inching closer with that "move" (which "includes the impeachment of the current administration as well as prosecution of its cronies and repudiation of the policies that enrich them (or cripple us)") given Rove's retirement and Gonzales' decision to take up needle point...or not?
I'm waiting (not really) for the media to announce that "beginning" you speak of...now that we are reduced to consuming the entertainment it provides.
The real precedent: News (not merely programming) cast for entertainment value...information to enhance our immediate pleasure providing relief from real worries...not help so much.

[CGE]

Gang -

Don't know the degree to what extent the report was altered but personal experience in New Mexico (a Democratic party controlled polling system) has shown:
1 - the "Dead" vote going 80% to the Democrat candidates.
2 - repeated instances of uncounted voting "machines" "discovered" after the "certification" of election results coming from predominantly "Republican" precincts
3 - in two elections in the past 10 years I have gone to the polls only to find that I had "already voted" via adsentee ballet
4 - distribution of "voter identification cards" (Not required to vote) resulted in seven cards coming to my home address (two registered voters)
5 - personal observation of non-English speaking "voters" be "shown" how to vote a straight "Democrat Ticket" at the polling facility.

Additionally - it is ALWAYS the Democrats who oppose:
1 - purging the voter registration lists (they ARE never audited/purged here in NM)
2 - ANY form of positive ID being a requirement to Vote
3 - pursuit of voter fraud complaints/activity EVEN when it is clear fraud has taken place (i.e., more votes cast than "sign in" sheets show people were there to vote).

Why then would it appear that Republican intimidation be the finding of a report (i.e., parking a police car within a block of a polling place - requesting an ID card) when much of the recent voter fraud experience (Washington state governor's race) has benefitted Democratic candidates?

[TigerPaw]

One wonders why the US doesn't just take the final step and print cards with the appropriate names already ticked off like they used to do in the USSR for "voters" to just put into the ballot box.

The obvious solution as is used in many countries is to have a non-partisan election commission that runs all elections at all levels of government, sets riding boundaries, and so forth. The fact that the obvious solution is not considered by either side shows that fundamentally they like the current system. It also means however that lectures by the US on how to run a government are now greeted with laughter or simply ignored in most parts of the world.

[RW]

CGE: Do you have authoritative sources to support those assertions? Based on news reports I've seen every one of those allegations and more besides were promoted by GOP front groups such as the "American Center for Voting Rights" (ACVR)* and were also supported by the Bush/Gonzales DOJ even though the US Attorney for NM, David Iglesias, could find no evidence for any of the allegations and refused to pursue prosecutions (a 'lack of action' that allegedly resulted in him being terminated as were 7 other US Attorneys).

To the best I can determine the allegations of wide-spread voter fraud was just another GOP dirty trick, the main difference being that it involved collusion on the part of DOJ and possibly other official branches of federal executive branch this time around; IOW just another abuse of power and, io ipso, an additional impeachable offense.

*apparently ACVR and other voter fraud groups alleging Democratic Party skulduggery have disappeared (or at least their web sites have) since the firing of 8 US Attorneys became a national scandal. Here are some links to research and/or analysis WRT NM voter fraud that are still good: http://tinyurl.com/5dtvj (phantom votes); http://tinyurl.com/3cjjru (NM vote executive summary); http://tinyurl.com/5g3mb (reported problems during NM general election)

[robertdfeinman]

There is actually a hopeful aspect to this story (and several others of a similar nature).

It shows that the GOP is aware that they don't have the support of the majority of the population and that they only way they can stay in office is through fraud and deceit.

The fraud and deceit are there for all to see, even though it takes some digging to find the stories which uncover it.

So the hopeful signs are that there is still a (limited) free press and that the public doesn't support the current policies. There are only two ways a minority government can continue under these conditions.

The first is to create an even bigger fraud to cover up the existing one. That's what happened with the fear-mongering over the past several years.

The second is to suppress the popular will by force, or by enough force to intimidate the rest of the population into acquiescence. This has happened several times in US history. The conscription riots during the Civil War and the Palmer Raids during the WWI period are examples. Notice that both took place during extreme periods. We are not in the same position now, no matter how scary Bush wants to paint "terrorists". I don't think the same heavy-handed tactics could be used now.

I'm guessing that in the next election the votes will be so lopsided that the type of election fraud seen in Florida and Ohio will only be able to influence a tiny number of marginal races.

Whether the Dems will take advantage of their majority to put forth bold new ideas is the $64 question.

[James Killus]

CGE, are you a co-author of the report, "A Risk Based Decision Aiding Tool for Waste Disposal?"

[BJ Feng]

I too, have heard the stories of voter fraud, but let's think logically on what makes sense and what is more likely. When Democrats talk about voter fraud, it's with generalities and wide sweeping conspiracies. Exactly what kind of fraud is taking place? PLEASE elaborate. How are people being "intimidated"? Are there big Republican dudes outside the polling stations that follow home people who they suspect of being Democrats? Are minorities told they can't vote because they're minorities? The second seems especially unlikely because any person who did this would face years in prison and it would be picked up by the media immediately. Exactly what kind of fraud is going on?

Republicans make the same allegations of fraud, but they state the exact type of fraud going on. People are voting that should not be because they either pretend to be someone else, or get on the voter lists without having the right to vote. This definitely goes on, someone already has shared their personal experiences. Sure it could be just a mistake that he was told he already voted, but the story fits with others all around the country. Secondly, it makes logical sense. This type of voter fraud would be hard to catch. Just show up with no ID, and tell them you are someone else. If they ask for the ID, just say you forgot it at home and then leave if it looks like there might be trouble. There's very little danger of being caught because no one knows who you are. You could also try to get on the voter lists without having the right to vote. If denied, just say, Oh, I didn't realize I couldn't vote. I've seen that excuse used before when a bunch of immigrants tried to apply for registration cards but were denied. Interesting that they didn't know only citizens have the right to vote.

Finally, why is there opposition to ID being required to vote? To ensure an "one person, one vote" fair election, you would think it makes sense that we verify you are who you are. The excuse has always been that some people can't get IDs or can't come up with the money. Well the proposal would have covered all of the costs for ID if someone couldn't afford it, so it's back to the "can't get an ID" excuse which is absolutely ridiculous. Again, there has never been a person who can't get an ID no matter how hard they try. You have to wonder why Democrats are so against showing proof of who you are before voting. Incredible.

[anne]

"People are voting that should not be because they either pretend to be someone else, or get on the voter lists without having the right to vote. This definitely goes on, someone already has shared their personal experiences."

Of course, as always, lie on lie on lie. Complete lying from beginning to end, but lying is what liars are about.

[anne]

"You have to wonder why Democrats are so against showing proof of who you are before voting. Incredible."

Yes; incredible, a complete lie, a vicious lie, as always.

[anne]

"You could also try to get on the voter lists without having the right to vote. If denied, just say, Oh, I didn't realize I couldn't vote. I've seen that excuse used before when a bunch of immigrants tried to apply for registration cards but were denied. Interesting that they didn't know only citizens have the right to vote."

Notice the language, notice the vicious prejudice, notice the lying simply for the sake of spreading prejudice.

[elvis]

CGE, any voter fraud is wrong and you are right that it occurs on all sides.

Now, let me have a little fun:

1 - the "Dead" vote going 80% to the Democrat candidates.
Victims of the current administration naturally vote for the other party.

2 - repeated instances of uncounted voting "machines" "discovered" after the "certification" of election results coming from predominantly "Republican" precincts
Also discovered: 99 unmatched socks.

3 - in two elections in the past 10 years I have gone to the polls only to find that I had "already voted" via adsentee ballet
They know you and thought they'd save you the trouble of showing up.

4 - distribution of "voter identification cards" (Not required to vote) resulted in seven cards coming to my home address (two registered voters)
Collector's items! I've got Voldemort and Dumbledore--hoping to get Cheney next.

5 - personal observation of non-English speaking "voters" be "shown" how to vote a straight "Democrat Ticket" at the polling facility.
Don't worry, all those "Provisional Ballots" are headed for the circular file.

[anne]

What is interesting is that every lie has been used repeatedly by Republicans in the last few years, only to be investigated or adjudicated and shown false. Georgia Republicans passed a law requiring a paid voter identification card, this from a state that historically and methodically kept African Americans from voting. The law was however set aside in court as simple a poll tax.

So, then, the direction is now illegal immigrant voting, which was used as a mask for the Georgia law even though investigated before and found as always to be an entirely false chanrge. Nonetheless, we must be taught how to despise immigrants and possibly catch others in the trap.

African Americans through the South, though, know all so well about historical voter intimidation and suppression.

[elvis]

We should use the jury method for choosing representatives.
That's how the Athenians did it-- put names of eligible citizens in a pot and shook it until a number of them fell out.

The representatives served for a year and were immune from prosecution during that time. After serving the immunity was lifted and they were open to charges of corruption.

This method would greatly increase the diversity of our representatives as well as removing all need for campaign finance reform.

[anne]

The charges about New Mexico voter fraud were investigated fully by a Republican appointed and Republican majority confirmed US Attorney, who found no evidence of fraud. Finding no evidence of fraud, the US Attorney was fired by the US Attorney General.

The charges about New Mexico are hateful lies, again with the intent to intimidate Latino voters. These are prejudicial lies, designed to intimidate Latinos voters and designed to spread prejudice.

[anne]

Elvis, I will never bother to read italics.

[anne]

Again, notice what are essentially charges that are designed to lead to intimidating Latino voters. The charges are lies, and have been repeatedly shown to be lies, and show how desperately afraid the liars are. We are back to the Jim Crow days of attempted voter suppression.

[ken melvin]

The parties are about even as long as we let money count more than people, let the repubs rig the vote as they did in Ohio and Florida (that we know for sure), and have the media kiss up to the republicans.

Things I need to say: George W. Bush is despicable man. So are Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh. Anyone who supports this lot and their like is despicable.

[elvis]

Greg Palast spoke about NM in his book "Armed Madhouse"
He was very emotional about the Native Americans and how their votes have been treated.

[Patricia Shannon]

B J Feng
The reasons people haven't been giving specifics on the fraud by the Republicans is that it was so well known it wasn't thought to be specific. I don't have time to go into detail tonight. If nobody else does by tomorrow, I'll give some specifics.

After all the lies the Republicans have spewed, any specifics they give are suspect. My observations of them, and my personal experience, is that they will make up "facts" to prove whatever they want to prove. In the case of individuals I have known, it appears that sometimes they believe what they're saying.

[anne]

"5 - personal observation of non-English speaking 'voters' being 'shown' how to vote a straight 'Democrat Ticket' at the polling facility."

"You could also try to get on the voter lists without having the right to vote. If denied, just say, Oh, I didn't realize I couldn't vote. I've seen that excuse used before when a bunch of immigrants tried to apply for registration cards but were denied. Interesting that they didn't know only citizens have the right to vote."

Notice the language of prejudice; notice the pattern of lying to spread prejudice, as though honoring a tradition of abhorrence of democracy.

[ken melvin]

Had an aunt who married a Texan and lived in New Mexico. He was with the Sherrifs Dept. (made up of fellow Texans) in an unnamed county (he was an asshole too). They would arrest drunk Navahos and have them work of their fine doing public works. The county didn't hire anyone to do public works, they simply arrested whatever help they needed which, of course, saved taxes. As in the frontier days, they had to demonize them first.

[BJ Feng]

Thank you Patricia for at least attempting or promising to answer the question. I know of past voter intimidation, including beatings, lynchings, poll taxes and "tests", but I'm pretty confident those no longer go on today. By the way, those tactics were used by Democrats to suppress the Black vote in the South after Reconstruction, but why bring up a sore point.

Now, I've heard of some people saying that they were not on the voter lists on election day after they had registered to vote. Here in California, we always get a sample ballot mailed to us in advance so that we can be familiar with the propositions and so forth. I've always regarded those as "proof" of registration, so if you don't get your sample ballot within a certain amount of time, you know something's screwed up. The place of your polling station is also included with your sample ballot, and I don't know of anyone who received a sample ballot, but was left off of the lists.

Where I vote, there are signs posted forbidding lobbying within a certain radius of the polling station. I haven't seen this be violated, and the people in line also avoid talking politics, preferring sports or other general chit-chat instead. I've seen people go into the booths together, but that's because one person needs help understanding English usually and I don't see that as a problem.

I'm interested in what type of fraud you believe exists out there.

P.S. I've also heard of pro-Democrat groups paying homeless people to go and vote. The homeless were handed a pre-marked ballot and given $5-$10 after voting. I heard this on the Sean Hannity show, but I haven't verified it, or heard it discussed elsewhere, so I don't know if this is true or not.

I've also heard that some ex-convicts were denied the right to vote when they should have been allowed. I think this is just another example of government agency incompetence and not intentional fraud. Plus the person should be able to correct the situation ahead of time by showing that his crime didn't invalidate his right to vote. Given that the vast majority of criminals are Democrats (vote Democrat) I can see why this issue has been one of concern, and why there is a push in some States to allow more criminals to vote. I believe that once someone has served their time, they should be able to vote, but it's still funny to hear Democrats feverishly pitching for the criminal vote.

[BJ Feng]

Anne, I thought you lived in France. From where do you get your information about the mechanisms of voter fraud and its frequency? By the way, if anyone should be intimidated while voting, it should be me, voting with a Libertarian ballot, or Independent (I've been registered as decline to state) in a heavily Democratic leaning district. I would say 60-70% of those voting around me have Democratic ballots.

[anne]

"You could also try to get on the voter lists without having the right to vote. If denied, just say, Oh, I didn't realize I couldn't vote. I've seen that excuse used before when a bunch of immigrants tried to apply for registration cards but were denied. Interesting that they didn't know only citizens have the right to vote."

"P.S. I've also heard of pro-Democrat groups paying homeless people to go and vote. The homeless were handed a pre-marked ballot and given $5-$10 after voting. I heard this on the Sean Hannity show, but I haven't verified it, or heard it discussed elsewhere, so I don't know if this is true or not."

Notice the vile prejudice, notice the lies on lies, notice the spreading of prejudice and lies all for the sake of fostering hatred.

[anne]

"Given that the vast majority of criminals are Democrats (vote Democrat) I can see why this issue has been one of concern...."

Notice the lies on lies, the spreading of hate-filled lies for the sake spreading hate-filled prejudice. Always lies, always prejudice, always the spreading of lies of hatred and prejudice.

[anne]

"You could also try to get on the voter lists without having the right to vote. If denied, just say, Oh, I didn't realize I couldn't vote. I've seen that excuse used before when a bunch of immigrants tried to apply for registration cards but were denied. Interesting that they didn't know only citizens have the right to vote."

"P.S. I've also heard of pro-Democrat groups paying homeless people to go and vote. The homeless were handed a pre-marked ballot and given $5-$10 after voting. I heard this on the Sean Hannity show, but I haven't verified it, or heard it discussed elsewhere, so I don't know if this is true or not."

"Given that the vast majority of criminals are Democrats (vote Democrat) I can see why this issue has been one of concern...."

"....but it's still funny to hear Democrats feverishly pitching for the criminal vote."

Notice the language of prejudice and fear and hatred. Always lies on lies, always spread fear and hatred and prejudice.

[Brenda Rosser]

A rigged report is what you'd expect from those party to rigged elections. See:

http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2005/1529

Actually freepress.org is an excellent site to investigate the widespread fraud in the 2000, 2004 general elections in the US. This nation appears to have a long history of electoral rigging. In 1960. In 1972. (They're the other specific ones I have identified. ) A closer look at the electoral system in the US reveals that there isn't one.

See also: www.bradblog.com

[reason]

Brenda Rosser...
good comment, but a quibble "election rigging" is the wrong term. "Voting manipulation" is better. Election rigging is what happens in Bjelorussia. What happens in the US is only relevant during very close elections where a handful of states decide the outcome (apart of course from the even more abominable geremander in the House).

[Brenda Rosser]

Reeson said: "Brenda Rosser...good comment, but a quibble "election rigging" is the wrong term..."

Nah! I'll stick with the word 'rigged'

Kerry Won the Election by at least 1,7 Million Votes
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MEN412A.html
by Brad Menfil

[BJ Feng]

Again, please be specific about the "manipulation" that occurs. What form does it take? And that Kerry gathered more votes than Bush overall doesn't have anything to do with fraud or manipulation. That's not how our system works. The electoral system gives more weight to small States and guarantees a two party system that gravitates towards the center. The electoral system should be copied by more countries in my opinion. It avoids at lot of the horse-trading of bad legislation that goes on in other countries so that a majority can be formed from small parties. That some legislation can be enacted with very little public support just so that a majority can be formed is bad for the public in general.

[anne]

"Republicans make the same allegations of fraud, but they state the exact type of fraud going on. People are voting that should not be because they either pretend to be someone else, or get on the voter lists without having the right to vote. This definitely goes on...."

"You could also try to get on the voter lists without having the right to vote. If denied, just say, Oh, I didn't realize I couldn't vote. I've seen that excuse used before when a bunch of immigrants tried to apply for registration cards but were denied. Interesting that they didn't know only citizens have the right to vote...."

"P.S. I've also heard of pro-Democrat groups paying homeless people to go and vote. The homeless were handed a pre-marked ballot and given $5-$10 after voting. I heard this on the Sean Hannity show, but I haven't verified it, or heard it discussed elsewhere, so I don't know if this is true or not...."

"Given that the vast majority of criminals are Democrats (vote Democrat) I can see why this issue has been one of concern...."

"....but it's still funny to hear Democrats feverishly pitching for the criminal vote."

Lie on lie on lie on lie on lie.

[anne]

Notice the nature of the lies; the prejudice, the maligning, the spreading of prejudice and corrosive meanness. Precisely the technique learned so well by those who would attack and malign American military heroes whether from Georgia or Pennsylvania or Massachusetts.

[Patricia Shannon]

B J Feng, first I want to acknowledge that election wrongdoing is not limited to any one party or era. What most of us are concerned about is recent events.

Here are some links to articles about problems in the 2004 presidential elections.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2005/08/0080696

http://freepress.org/departments/display/19/2004/886

http://www.alternet.org/story/58328/

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1118-30.htm

http://www.truthout.org/docs_05/010605Y.shtml

(from FOX news, no less)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137417,00.html

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/1970/

http://opednews.com/keefer_111504_readings.htm

One example
==============================
"A consulting firm called Sproul & Associates, which was hired by the Republican National Committee to register voters in six battleground states,(6) was discovered shredding Democratic registrations."
===========================

This company did voter registration in , and shredded the voter registration forms of those who registered as Democrats. So these Democrats thought they were registered, and when they got to the polls, they couldn't vote.

The things that have been happening have been especially troubling because in many instances, they were organized by the National Republican party, and ignored by the main-stream media, the supposed watch dog for democracy.

[Patricia Shannon]

Because of his usual behaviour with the media he already owned, I expect that Murdoch's takeover of the Wall Street Journal will further endanger our economic system and our democracy.

[ken melvin]

To the libertarian: Rationalized psychosis is still psychosis.

[BJ Feng]

To gauge voter fraud, we have to ask if the mistakes made are do to systematic, intentional acts or simple non-intentional error and incompetence. I've always been against the voter machines, especially those that cannot provide physical documentation. Such machines might be tampered with, and there would be no way to double-check and prove the tampering or irregularities.

The most serious allegations were made by Rolling Stone, notably this one,

"Blackwell announced on September 7th -- less than a month before the filing deadline -- that election officials would process registration forms only if they were printed on eighty-pound unwaxed white paper stock, similar to a typical postcard. Justifying his decision to ROLLING STONE, Blackwell portrayed it as an attempt to protect voters: ''The postal service had recommended to us that we establish a heavy enough paper-weight standard that we not disenfranchise voters by having their registration form damaged by postal equipment.'' Yet Blackwell's order also applied to registrations delivered in person to election offices. He further specified that any valid registration cards printed on lesser paper stock that miraculously survived the shredding gauntlet at the post office were not to be processed; instead, they were to be treated as applications for a registration form, requiring election boards to send out a brand-new card.(90)"

This was the most serious occurrence and we know it happened because the order is verifiable. It also made very little sense or logic to issue this order other than to influence the election. What is unproven is if more Democrats were hurt by this order than Republicans, but I would guess it's pretty safe to say that Democrats were impacted more. Another question that needs to be asked is if Democratic Secretaries of State are doing the same thing in other places.

Some of the other allegations such as long waiting lines and more Republican voting machines (precincts will have more of one type depending on the ratio of registered voters) can be easily dismissed as inconsequential. Nevertheless, we should ask if some of the actions of Blackwell can be prevented or eliminated in the future. I'm not certain if they can as they were eventually reversed and only were in place for a short period of time. I should also mention that the "caging", sending registered mail that has to be signed for to verify registration was also a serious abuse, but it was reversed and those effected were allowed to vote, although not notified of that fact directly. Were they enough to change the outcome of the race? Given the failure of challenges to stand up in court, probably not.

Interesting that the Washington Post and New York Times noted,

The Washington Post immediately dismissed allegations of fraud as ''conspiracy theories,''(1) and The New York Times declared that ''there is no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale.''(2)

[Brenda Rosser]

The Washington Post immediately dismissed allegations of fraud as ''conspiracy theories,''(1) and The New York Times declared that ''there is no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale.''(2)

Mainstream media is definitely on your side, Feng.

[Brenda Rosser]

The Washington Post immediately dismissed allegations of fraud as ''conspiracy theories,''(1) and The New York Times declared that ''there is no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale.''(2)

Mainstream media is definitely on your side, Feng.

[anne]

Notice how Republican conservatives have subverted the post. The post points out that research conclusions on voting were subverted by the Election Assistance Commission in line with continual Republican charges on "Election Crimes," charges that have been repeately shown false by Republican appointed US Attorneys.

The point is that research conclusions were subverted. The post however draws a slew of typical Republican charges of election crimes and slanders, typically ethnically tinged, aimed at Democrats.

This within months of the scandal on the firing of US Attorneys who interestingly enough were not able to find any evidence of election crimes, notably in New Mexico and notably crimes by selected immigrants.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/21/opinion/21iglesias.html?ex=1332129600&en=a659cdbb5069538f&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

March 21, 2007

Why I Was Fired
By DAVID C. IGLESIAS

Albuquerque

WITH this week's release of more than 3,000 Justice Department e-mail messages about the dismissal of eight federal prosecutors, it seems clear that politics played a role in the ousters.

Of course, as one of the eight, I've felt this way for some time. But now that the record is out there in black and white for the rest of the country to see, the argument that we were fired for "performance related" reasons (in the words of Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty) is starting to look more than a little wobbly.

United States attorneys have a long history of being insulated from politics. Although we receive our appointments through the political process (I am a Republican who was recommended by Senator Pete Domenici), we are expected to be apolitical once we are in office. I will never forget John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, telling me during the summer of 2001 that politics should play no role during my tenure. I took that message to heart. Little did I know that I could be fired for not being political.

Politics entered my life with two phone calls that I received last fall, just before the November election. One came from Representative Heather Wilson and the other from Senator Domenici, both Republicans from my state, New Mexico.

Ms. Wilson asked me about sealed indictments pertaining to a politically charged corruption case widely reported in the news media involving local Democrats. Her question instantly put me on guard. Prosecutors may not legally talk about indictments, so I was evasive. Shortly after speaking to Ms. Wilson, I received a call from Senator Domenici at my home. The senator wanted to know whether I was going to file corruption charges — the cases Ms. Wilson had been asking about — before November. When I told him that I didn't think so, he said, "I am very sorry to hear that," and the line went dead.

A few weeks after those phone calls, my name was added to a list of United States attorneys who would be asked to resign — even though I had excellent office evaluations, the biggest political corruption prosecutions in New Mexico history, a record number of overall prosecutions and a 95 percent conviction rate. (In one of the documents released this week, I was deemed a "diverse up and comer" in 2004. Two years later I was asked to resign with no reasons given.)

When some of my fired colleagues — Daniel Bogden of Las Vegas; Paul Charlton of Phoenix; H. E. Cummins III of Little Rock, Ark.; Carol Lam of San Diego; and John McKay of Seattle — and I testified before Congress on March 6, a disturbing pattern began to emerge. Not only had we not been insulated from politics, we had apparently been singled out for political reasons. (Among the Justice Department's released documents is one describing the office of Senator Domenici as being "happy as a clam" that I was fired.)

As this story has unfolded these last few weeks, much has been made of my decision to not prosecute alleged voter fraud in New Mexico. Without the benefit of reviewing evidence gleaned from F.B.I. investigative reports, party officials in my state have said that I should have begun a prosecution. What the critics, who don't have any experience as prosecutors, have asserted is reprehensible — namely that I should have proceeded without having proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The public has a right to believe that prosecution decisions are made on legal, not political, grounds.

What's more, their narrative has largely ignored that I was one of just two United States attorneys in the country to create a voter-fraud task force in 2004. Mine was bipartisan, and it included state and local law enforcement and election officials.

After reviewing more than 100 complaints of voter fraud, I felt there was one possible case that should be prosecuted federally. I worked with the F.B.I. and the Justice Department's public integrity section. As much as I wanted to prosecute the case, I could not overcome evidentiary problems. The Justice Department and the F.B.I. did not disagree with my decision in the end not to prosecute....