Wisconsin State Senate Recalls

Again, jdzappa, you're trying to solve a problem that does not exist. And you are doing so at a very high cost to the disadvantaged in society.

If you really want to go after vote corruption, the solution has always been to go after the people counting, not the people voting. In ALL cases. You just don't get massive voter fraud by individuals. The examples you cite, Tammany Hall and 1920s Chicago, needed insiders colluding to make them happen.

Individual people are almost entirely powerless to commit fraud, and are easily caught if the vote-counting infrastructure is honest.

The only reason to require photo ID is to stop people from voting.

Malor wrote:

The only reason to require photo ID is to stop poor and minority people from voting.

FTFY.

OG_slinger wrote:
Malor wrote:

The only reason to require photo ID is to stop liberals from voting.

FTFY.

Indeed.

Though, the more inclusive, the better.

Yeah, I will need an event within my lifetime to convince me of the need for any sort of voter ID.

Another way of putting it: by attacking the problem at the wrong angle, you'd end up turning away 500 valid votes for every fraudulent one. At least. Maybe more.

That's the real goal, stopping those 500 valid votes, not the fraudulent one.

How much do we actually look for voter fraud and honestly how could we tell with the current system?

Also from only the 2008 election in Minnesota there were apparently 113 vote fraud convictions in Minnesota alone, with some 200 others were still pending trial at the time of the article. Those 313 potential votes could have changed the results of the senate election which was won by 312 votes.

I do wonder though, I don't know of anyone without any form of ID these days. Then again everyone I know owns a cell phone too. But how many people out there have *no* form of ID at all? I can't see it being that many, because you need an ID for everything these days. Cashing a check, need an ID. Want to get money from a bank, need an ID. Want to work, need an ID. Want to sell anything to a business, need an ID. How many people could possibly have none at all?

At the risk of repeating myself (again):

Dimmerswitch[/url]]To put it in perspective:

Brennan Center for Justice[/url]]The similarly closely-analyzed 2004 election in Ohio revealed a voter fraud rate of 0.00004%. National Weather Service data shows that Americans are struck and killed by lightning about as often.

The money spent on restrictive voter ID laws could just as profitably be spent on lightning rods for polling stations - and would have the added benefit of not disenfranchising anyone.

In short, it's "solving" a nonexistent problem, and creating more barriers to participation in the democratic process.

If folks want to have another discussion on Voter ID and the issues it purports to solve, might I suggest a different thread?

rosenhane wrote:

How much do we actually look for voter fraud and honestly how could we tell with the current system?

Also from only the 2008 election in Minnesota there were apparently 113 vote fraud convictions in Minnesota alone, with some 200 others were still pending trial at the time of the article. Those 313 potential votes could have changed the results of the senate election which was won by 312 votes.

Two things here: First, the "how could we tell with the current system?" argument is a no-sell, because it presumes guilty until proven innocent. Which sort of goes against how the whole legal system is set up.

Second: Reading the actual PDF on the site, they submitted 2,803 suspected ineligible voters. They have secured 113 fraud convictions. This is 4%. Extrapolating from there, of the 200 pending, that's 8 more. 16 if I'm being really generous. That's not 313 votes, that's 129.

Furthermore, you don't get to claim "It's the tip of the iceberg!", if they weren't convicted of fraud. They didn't say why, or how, or what the circumstances were on people who were cleared. It could have been "Looked ineligible, but wasn't", or "unknowingly was not eligible". It doesn't say.

Claiming because convicted felons voting (Which is, quite likely, the stupidest law I have _ever_ heard, and this is from a kid in the bible belt.), means all other sorts of fraud are rampant is also a nonstarter. Really, it's like me saying that because you have a speeding ticket, you must have, somehow, somewhere, run some dude down in cold blood.

All you're doing is disenfranchising people, not doing anything to stop voter fraud. If you really cared? Push the idea Malor had about computer _assisted_ voting, with a hashable unique number. That'd actually help, and make voting more reliable and easier to tabulate, with the ability to ensure your vote was counted.

Edit: A new thread would be good. Also, getting hit by lightning really f*cking hurts, so I could totally support more lightning rods. Had an awesome scar for awhile because of it, though.

You should start a 'lightning survivors' thread in Everything Else, Kannon. I bet that's a great story.

rosenhane wrote:

How much do we actually look for voter fraud and honestly how could we tell with the current system?

Also from only the 2008 election in Minnesota there were apparently 113 vote fraud convictions in Minnesota alone, with some 200 others were still pending trial at the time of the article. Those 313 potential votes could have changed the results of the senate election which was won by 312 votes.

I do wonder though, I don't know of anyone without any form of ID these days. Then again everyone I know owns a cell phone too. But how many people out there have *no* form of ID at all? I can't see it being that many, because you need an ID for everything these days. Cashing a check, need an ID. Want to get money from a bank, need an ID. Want to work, need an ID. Want to sell anything to a business, need an ID. How many people could possibly have none at all?

If I am understanding that article correctly, that is an organization that went out and found all the ex cons that voted and then prosecuted them? What a waste of time and money.

Look at it another way. Their crime was "ineligible voter knowingly votes". How exactly will requiring them to have id help prevent that? They didn't use fake names, or anything like that. They voted when they shouldn't. It's the *eligibility* process which should have excluded them, but didn't.

So, the answer to the actual problem is, increase the ways eligibility is checked, at registration. That's a whole new database, unless you want election registrars having access to tax rolls or police records. So... More government will fix the problem.

I'd also be a fool to think raids from nomadic barbarians never happened--but that doesn't mean I'm willing to invest in a moat right now.

Robear's comment there is excellent. Notice that he's focusing on the people who COUNT the votes, not the people who CAST them. Ineligible voters don't always know if they're ineligible, but the government should be able to tell them when they try to register.

That's a failure of the voting system, and punishing poor people is not the answer.

And, let me also reinforce what Robear says... voter ID laws would not fix the problem you're so uptight about. Voter ID laws aren't about stopping fraudulent votes. They're about stopping valid votes that conservatives don't like.

rosenhane wrote:

I do wonder though, I don't know of anyone without any form of ID these days. Then again everyone I know owns a cell phone too. But how many people out there have *no* form of ID at all? I can't see it being that many, because you need an ID for everything these days. Cashing a check, need an ID. Want to get money from a bank, need an ID. Want to work, need an ID. Want to sell anything to a business, need an ID. How many people could possibly have none at all?

My grandmother didn't have any ID for years before she died. She didn't need to have one. She was in an assisted living facility that provided for her needs. Her Social Security check was direct deposited to her checking account. All of her bills were paid via ACH. She stopped driving decades ago and after her DL expired, there was no reason to renew it. She lived for 15 or more years (I don't recall the exact number) without a precious ID because she didn't need one.

However, she voted in every election, and in the last few cycles, she did so from the comfort of her apartment because Arizona allowed for vote by mail.

So, that is at least one person who didn't have an ID and requiring her to get one would have been a substantial hardship because 1) she was in her 90s and needed assistance for extended walking, 2) the closest DMV to her assisted-living facility was 8 miles away, 3) Phoenix does not have a comprehensive public transportation system (not that she could use it anyway).

Now, I know the next line of questioning will be about why me or one of my family couldn't take her. In her life, she didn't need to be taken to the DMV to get an ID to vote. But if she needed the transportation, I would have gladly taken her to do it. So, two questions: since she was frail and needed care, who foots the bill to have a trained professional go with us to take care of my grandmother and what happens to someone who doesn't have family or friends to rely on?

I am willing to bet there are plenty of people who don't have an ID because they simply don't need one. And in Arizona, with its large number of retirees, I am willing to bet there are plenty of them that simply don't need an ID because they don't do anything that requires them to need one.

Phoenix Rev made an interesting case, but I would point out that she had an ID, and it had been verified at some point and in any case she wasn't going to the polling place to vote, so it isn't relevant to the issue.

Also in Arizona aren't your IDs valid until you are 65, at which point you can get an ID card for free (or if you are on SSI you get one free as well)? link Er on further reading an ID card is $12 and good indefinitely in AZ, unless it is issued to replace a suspended license.

I can see both sides, just because there isn't much voter fraud doesn't mean that simple steps shouldn't be taken to make sure that there isn't, but at the same time, depending upon what sort of ID requirements you demand it could be a burden.

Then again it depends upon what you are trying to prevent, if you are trying to prevent non citizens from voting then you need an ID, if you are trying to prevent people from double voting, something low tech like dipping their finger in ink when they get their ballot should work to ensure that they cannot vote twice.

rosenhane wrote:

Also from only the 2008 election in Minnesota there were apparently 113 vote fraud convictions in Minnesota alone, with some 200 others were still pending trial at the time of the article. Those 313 potential votes could have changed the results of the senate election which was won by 312 votes.

And take a look at how Minnesota Majority decided to promote their little research project on their web site:

IMAGE(http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/assets_c/2012/02/images-thumb-400x224.jpg)

We have the brave white Superman defending Minnesota's democracy from dead people, dirty Mexicans, and black criminals.

I thought he was just in line with the rest of them, not defending democracy.

Well, I suppose Minnesota could have a problem with comic book superheros voting illegally.

rosenhane wrote:

Phoenix Rev made an interesting case, but I would point out that she had an ID, and it had been verified at some point and in any case she wasn't going to the polling place to vote, so it isn't relevant to the issue.

But that is one person exercising the vote-by-mail option.

If she chose to go to the polling station she would have needed an ID. Also, you have to certify every year that you want to keep receiving ballots by mail. If you miss the deadline (forgot, got lost in the mail, etc.), then you have to show up at the polling station now with an ID.

Also in Arizona aren't your IDs valid until you are 65, at which point you can get an ID card for free (or if you are on SSI you get one free as well)? link Er on further reading an ID card is $12 and good indefinitely in AZ, unless it is issued to replace a suspended license.

My grandmother did not get a DL under the system that changed the expiration date longevity. Even I remember when Arizona DLs were good for only four years. Again, she stopped driving and didn't renew her DL.

As for the ID card, you are now requiring someone to expend dollars to get an ID that may serve one purpose: to vote. That is all but a poll tax.

And, as I noted above, she would need transportation and physical assistance to get that ID.

I can see both sides, just because there isn't much voter fraud doesn't mean that simple steps shouldn't be taken to make sure that there isn't, but at the same time, depending upon what sort of ID requirements you demand it could be a burden.

It isn't that "there isn't much voter fraud." It's that the amount of voter fraud is nearly non-existent. If you add up all of the votes cast over, say, the past decade and then compare that to the actual cases of voter fraud (not mistakes by poll workers, etc.), you end up with the probability that you are going to be hit by lightning more often then encountering voter fraud.

And yet we hear that our republic is suffering because of the rampant voter fraud that is occurring.

OG_slinger wrote:
rosenhane wrote:

Also from only the 2008 election in Minnesota there were apparently 113 vote fraud convictions in Minnesota alone, with some 200 others were still pending trial at the time of the article. Those 313 potential votes could have changed the results of the senate election which was won by 312 votes.

And take a look at how Minnesota Majority decided to promote their little research project on their web site:

IMAGE(http://minnesota.publicradio.org/collections/special/columns/polinaut/assets_c/2012/02/images-thumb-400x224.jpg)

We have the brave white Superman defending Minnesota's democracy from dead people, dirty Mexicans, and black criminals.

You caught all us white conservatives - requiring an ID card is a lot less work at keeping brown people away from the polls than cross-burnings. I mean, it's hard to get that burning smell out of your clan robes.

In all seriousness, this group's cartoon is in bad taste but I still don't see why it's a bad thing to require a little more oversight over who's voting, even if that means offering free ID cards.

Folks - if you're set on revisiting the topic of Voter ID, the issues it purports to solve, and the problems it might cause, please take it to another thread.

I'm begging you here.

In all seriousness, this group's cartoon is in bad taste but I still don't see why it's a bad thing to require a little more oversight over who's voting, even if that means offering free ID cards.

So, as a conservative, you're okay with taking a system that's working fine, and adding more government red tape to it to inconvenience citizens?

Really? This is conservative progress?

I can see both sides, just because there isn't much voter fraud doesn't mean that simple steps shouldn't be taken to make sure that there isn't, but at the same time, depending upon what sort of ID requirements you demand it could be a burden.

There's so little that the number is essentially indistinguishable from zero. All proposals that involve voter ID end up rejecting hundreds of valid votes to stop each invalid one. This means it's a bigger problem than the original problem.

Why are you not getting this?

I mean, seriously, rosenhane... do you think it's okay to reject someone from the voting booth because they haven't conformed to the rules you think you're allowed to impose on voting? Voting is one of the most fundamental rights we have.

If you don't have extremely strong evidence of broad and pervasive fraud, what on earth gives you the right to burden anyone's ability to exercise their franchise? Actually, even WITH THAT evidence, how can you burden anyone's right to vote in this way, period?

If you need to fix this kind of problem, you need to fix it at the bureau, not by attacking the voters. The problem is in the bureaucracy that accepted the vote as valid. And having a photo ID is not proof that your vote is valid, it's just proof that you're wiling to conform.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

If folks want to have another discussion on Voter ID and the issues it purports to solve, might I suggest a different thread? :)

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Folks - if you're set on revisiting the topic of Voter ID, the issues it purports to solve, and the problems it might cause, please take it to another thread.

I'm begging you here.

Here's a thread for you guys.

No surprise - Wanggaard has filed to have a recount. (Article is currently a stub and I expect to be filled in with details - will change the link if that assumption turns out to be off-base).

Totally support his campaign exercising their right to request a recount here. It's critically important that election results accurately reflect the will of the electorate.

Recount complete:

Initial results:
Van H. Wanggaard 35,517
John Lehman 36,351
Scattering (write-ins) 56

Winner: Lehman (margin: 834 votes)

Recount results:
Van H. Wanggaard 35,539
John Lehman 36,358
Scattering (write-ins) 58

Winner: Lehman (margin: 819 votes)

GAB is expected to certify the results a week from tomorrow. The Wanggaard campaign has made some rumblings about trying to get the entire election invalidated. I'm not sure what grounds they could come up with for that strong a remedy, but our state's Supreme Court has shown itself a reliable friendly ear for whatever the GOP wants to litigate, so I wouldn't be surprised if they file a suit even with no evidence at all.

Dimmerswitch wrote:

Recount complete:

Initial results:
Van H. Wanggaard 35,517
John Lehman 36,351
Scattering (write-ins) 56

Winner: Lehman (margin: 834 votes)

Recount results:
Van H. Wanggaard 35,539
John Lehman 36,358
Scattering (write-ins) 58

Winner: Lehman (margin: 819 votes)

GAB is expected to certify the results a week from tomorrow. The Wanggaard campaign has made some rumblings about trying to get the entire election invalidated. I'm not sure what grounds they could come up with for that strong a remedy, but our state's Supreme Court has shown itself a reliable friendly ear for whatever the GOP wants to litigate, so I wouldn't be surprised if they file a suit even with no evidence at all.

I'd make a satire comment about 10 votes, fraud, what have you, but then the nutters in the GOP there would come up with some batsh*t theory that puts mine to shame.

Wanggaard decides not to file lawsuit challenging results, Democrats now control State Senate.

Wanggaard lost to Democrat John Lehman by 819 votes, or about 1.1 percent of the nearly 72,000 ballots cast. Wanggaard had demanded a recount, which affirmed his loss.

That left Wanggaard with two choices: File a challenge by Tuesday or concede the race. His campaign chose not to challenge, clearing the way for state election officials to certify the race Wednesday morning and make the outcome official.

“Despite pleas from around the state to challenge the election, it is not in the best interests of Racine, or Wisconsin, at this time,” Wanggaard said in a statement. “Now is the time to focus on gaining the state senate back in November, winning Wisconsin’s U.S. Senate seat and electing Gov. (Mitt) Romney as president.”