Now on ScienceBlogs: Book Review: The Tangled Bank
Thoughts From the Interface of Science, Religion, Law and Culture
Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)
Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb
« McCain Call Center Workers Walk Off Job | Main | Lofton's Latest Lunacy »
Posted on: November 1, 2008 9:23 AM, by Ed Brayton
Here's one of the more absurd attempts at voter suppression I've ever seen. In Hampton Roads, VA, someone is distributing fliers saying that due to very high expected voter turnout, the Virginia Assembly has split the voting into two days, with Republicans and those intending to vote for Republicans voting on November 4th and Democrats voting on November 5th. Here's the flier:
Find more posts in: 
Politics
Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More
PZ Myers 11.24.2009
PZ Myers 11.24.2009
Ed Brayton 11.24.2009
Carlos Hotta 11.24.2009
Tim Lambert 11.23.2009
Comments
Why must some people make politics a dirty business?
Posted by: Captain Mike | November 1, 2008 9:39 AM
Hmmm . . . 'some people'. Don't you mean 'Republicans'? The deception is clearly designed to suppress Democratic voters.
So, the question in my mind is whether such deception is as widespread on the other side. The indications seem to be that these are tactics used by the right wing, but not much by the left. My outlook may be biased, since I choose to read liberal political blogs and newspapers.
Posted by: Daniel Kim | November 1, 2008 9:56 AM
Snopes traces this back to 2000; see
http://www.snopes.com/politics/humor/voting.asp
Posted by: anon1234 | November 1, 2008 10:03 AM
This particular trick seems to show up every election cycle. Interestingly every time I see it it's being used as a trick to try and suppress the democratic and minority (thus presumed democratic) voters.
Posted by: Hypatia | November 1, 2008 10:05 AM
It's the oldest trick in the book. I'm surprised anyone falls for it anymore.
Posted by: IasonOubache | November 1, 2008 10:11 AM
Sadly there are a lot of really stupid voters out there. Now if we could only find a way to eliminate them across the political spectrum, along with everyone who votes for whatever candidate promises them the most money, we'd be making some progress. And don't think I'm picking on welfare recipients there: my sights are aimed at AARP.
Part of me still thinks Florida got it right by accident in 2000: make the ballot as complicated as possible, and toss out all that are filled out incorrectly. If you can't be bothered to pay attention to what you are doing in the voting booth when you are choosing the leader of the (semi) free world, I'm not sure your vote should count.
Posted by: Science Avenger | November 1, 2008 10:35 AM
Science Avenger said:
"If you can't be bothered to pay attention to what you are doing in the voting booth when you are choosing the leader of the (semi) free world, I'm not sure your vote should count."
I think that that before you start making assertions that some people are too stupid or too old or too poor to deserve to vote, you should be absolutely sure about what you are saying.
You need to be absolutely sure about it, because you are espousing the most noxious, unAmerican, mean-spirited tripe I have read in quite a while, and you may need to defend these bigoted ideas of yours to people not addled by age or malnutrition.
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 1, 2008 10:48 AM
Reminds me of the old joke about the time when Britain finally will switch from driving on the left to driving on the right, to fall in line with the rest of Europe.
The change will be phased in over two days, with trucks and buses switching on the first day, then cars the next.
Posted by: tacitus | November 1, 2008 11:01 AM
It works because people don't know any better. Is that so hard to grasp? Social engineering is part of my job. Getting someone to do something they are not supposed to works close to 100% of the time.
@science avenger
Thank you for the most ignorant comment of the morning.
Posted by: yoshi | November 1, 2008 11:06 AM
Sounds to me like this should be a criminal action. This is a direct attempt to keep people from voting.
Plus, the whole idea of Republicans on one day and Democrats on another completely blows the concept of keeping your vote private.
Posted by: Mobius | November 1, 2008 11:12 AM
We have something similar going on in Michigan now, only it's being done by phone. People in Redford township are getting phone calls saying their polling places have been moved.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | November 1, 2008 11:28 AM
That's not so stupid and is likely to work, given that polling places HAVE been known to move on voters with little notice.
Posted by: gwangung | November 1, 2008 11:33 AM
Sorry Yoshi and Ginger, the ignorant tripe is coming from the two of you, who are pretending I said things I didn't. Try not being so presumptuous and histrionic.
Posted by: Science Avenger | November 1, 2008 11:50 AM
Working on the election in Nevada in 2004, I saw doorknob hanger cards distributed in predominantly Democratic neighborhoods which announced last-minute polling-place changes. Needless to say, they were not distributed by any government agency.
Posted by: Pieter B | November 1, 2008 12:17 PM
Explaining what I'm getting at is too long for a comment, but you can see my complete explanation here.
Short version: The nation would be better off if all the people that think Obama is a Muslim, or who don't even know which ticket Palin is on, or who only vote for whoever promises them the most money from everyone else, stayed home. So perhaps we need to stop naively thinking more votes are necessarily better, and start thinking of nondiscriminatory ways to get a better quality and more nationally focused voter.
Obviously dishonest shit like what Ed has been pointing out is way out of bounds. I sure hope whoever did it gets the feloneous penalty they deserve. I'm just being realistic and noting that results of said activity isn't all bad, and I'd be saying the same thing were there simlar flyers distributed in all the trailor parks.
Posted by: Science Avenger | November 1, 2008 12:42 PM
Science Avenger said:
"Sorry Yoshi and Ginger, the ignorant tripe is coming from the two of you, who are pretending I said things I didn't. Try not being so presumptuous and histrionic."
The undeniable thing about the internet is that when one does say something, the electronic evidence of what you said remains.
Or was it all just a joke and you forget a smilie?
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 1, 2008 12:56 PM
It just infuriates me that predominantly black neighborhoods always seem to get targeted for this shit. It seems like less of an act of simple voter intimidation and more of an overt, country-wide conspiracy to oppress an already disenfranchised population.
It's not likely that the people who do this would ever be caught, but it is illegal. It seems crazy that no one ever seems to catch the bastards. Of course, I wouldn't expect we'd catch everyone or even most of them. But they are out in public, going door to door committing a crime at each stop. Probably in broad daylight. Shouldn't their sheer visibility make them easier to find and then hopefully prosecute?
(I know. Not likely. I want blood, though. I want the perpetrators to go to prison and lose their right to vote because they're felons, and then hopefully get the crap sued out of them by every household they targeted.)
Posted by: Leni | November 1, 2008 1:10 PM
This is in Prof. Heddles' neck of the woods. Maybe he will show up to vote on Nov 5!
Posted by: SLC | November 1, 2008 1:13 PM
So perhaps we need to stop naively thinking more votes are necessarily better, and start thinking of nondiscriminatory ways to get a better quality and more nationally focused voter.
There's only one non-discriminatory way to decide who gets to vote: every person gets one vote. Everything else is just quibbling about who gets to screw who over.
Posted by: Ben Lillie | November 1, 2008 1:39 PM
SLC, he's planning on voting for Pal- I mean McCain.
So even if he were ignorant enough to believe a absurd lie like the one in this flier (which he obviously is not), he'd still show up on the right day.
Posted by: Leni | November 1, 2008 2:00 PM
Sorry, Science Avenger, you're the ass here. You wrote:
Come back here and try to keep a straight face while you explain to us all how you have never clicked the wrong button on a website, or, I don't know, dialed a wrong number. C'mon, how frikkin' hard can it be to dial 10 digits correctly? What could be a simpler interface than a phone touchpad? Anyone who can't do that right every time should be stripped of the right to vote.
I sentence you to 40 hours of lectures by Jakob Nielsen.
Posted by: Johnny Vector | November 1, 2008 2:41 PM
I say: amen, Ben. What would be the standards in discriminating between eligible vs. undeserving citizens? Cutoff level of IQ (or EQ for that matter)? Number of hours spent in community service? How many years you went to school? Outstanding personal body-part measurements? Oops, there really don't seem to be any good ways to cull the herd. Maybe because that's a fundamentally condescending view of humanity and denies people's innate ability to transcend ignorance, if given the tools and the chance.
Posted by: marnk | November 1, 2008 3:58 PM
I've been canvassing voters all day, and I told a lot of them about this. On departing, I always say: "Remember: Democrats vote on Election day. Republicans vote Wednesday. Tell your Republican Neighbors!"
Posted by: greg laden | November 1, 2008 5:20 PM
I'm surprised no one has mentioned another possibility; The fliers may have been planted by Democrats as a false flag operation.
Please don't shoot the messenger's tinfoil hat off his head.
Posted by: trog69 | November 1, 2008 5:24 PM
Science Avenger wrote: "Sadly there are a lot of really stupid voters out there. Now if we could only find a way to eliminate them across the political spectrum, along with everyone who votes for whatever candidate promises them the most money, we'd be making some progress."
Voting for the candidate who promises them the most money is a sign of intelligence. What amazes me is people who vote against their self-interest. Nonetheless, that's their right as citizens.
The rest of his ageist rant is unworthy of comment.
Posted by: Bob Foster | November 1, 2008 5:47 PM
Can you point to a single substantiated instance of such false flag operations on the part of the Democratic party in recent years?
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 1, 2008 5:50 PM
You have to love the "fairness" bit near the ned.
Posted by: marc buhler | November 1, 2008 5:51 PM
Can you point to a single substantiated instance of such false flag operations on the part of the Democratic party in recent years?
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 1, 2008 5:52 PM
..... "end" - (just waking up in Sydney - need 2nd cuppa badly..)
Posted by: marc buhler | November 1, 2008 5:54 PM
...the comment submission behavior is being weirder than usual; please delete the double-post above.
What I was trying to post was "for everyone who's showed up to troll about ACORN's supposed interference in the election, now's the time to put up or shut up."
Anyone?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 1, 2008 5:54 PM
The county I live in (King County WA), which handles the second largest number of ballots of any county in the country after LA County CA, is going all mail-in after this election. Oregon is already all mail-in statewide. I think this will become more and more common in coming years. This would eliminate tactics of this kind and rigged touch-screens, but you have to ask: would I trust the Postal Service under a Rethuglican administration? I don't know.
Posted by: Lurkbot | November 1, 2008 6:58 PM
Nonsense. Construing one's interests that narrowly isn't remotely a sign of intelligence; a three-year-old is capable of it. I certainly look for more in a candidate than a promise to put (or leave) more money in my pocket. Some of those dollars might be put to use in ways I find more valuable: for example, to buy body and vehicle armor, or proper medical care, for U.S. troops, or to repair crumbling bridges that might otherwise fall on the heads of those near and dear to me.
Posted by: noncarborundum | November 1, 2008 7:02 PM
Part of me still thinks Florida got it right by accident in 2000: make the ballot as complicated as possible, and toss out all that are filled out incorrectly. If you can't be bothered to pay attention to what you are doing in the voting booth when you are choosing the leader of the (semi) free world, I'm not sure your vote should count.
Unfortunately you don't seem to be aware of all of the events that transpired in Florida and parrot the Republican "they were too stupid to vote" meme. First, you had the removal of thousands of people from the rolls in a manner that specifically targeted minority (read: Democratic) voters. This was followed up by increased police presence and check points in, you guessed it, predominantly minority (again read: Democratic) neighborhoods. To make matters worse, while the punch card ballot was poorly designed in a manner that could be confusing, it also involved a format that forced voters to attempt to punch through multiple cards to cast their votes. That is where the "hanging chads, dimpled chads, etc." came from.
This "joke" isn't in the least bit amusing, what it is, quite simply, is criminal. They are targeting elderly, poorly educated, and/or simply inexperienced/unaware voters. This tactic was used in '00, '04, and now. In each case it targets predominantly minority, Democratic neighborhoods. I've seen where they have added things like fliers reminding voters to have taken care of all traffic warrants/citations, etc., prior to voting on... and then gives the Wednesday date.
Posted by: dogmeatib | November 1, 2008 7:03 PM
Lurkbot wrote:
I'm less worried about the Postal Service than I am about the crack heads that keep stealing my mail and rifling through my car every time I accidentally leave it unlocked (which is not often).
It's easy enough for me to walk 2 blocks to a mail drop, but I am not elderly or disabled. I would fear that in places where the election is close, even a small amount of theft could throw an election. I don't think that would be the case in Oregon, which is pretty solidly Democratic, but in Ohio? I don't know...
Posted by: Leni | November 1, 2008 7:37 PM
@ Leni:
That's a good point--you're right. I didn't think of that because I never mail anything just by sticking it in my mailbox and raising the flag, but undoubtedly a lot elderly and disabled voters do.
If absentee ballots were trickling in over weeks, though, it would be a little harder to run an organized campaign of stealing them out of mailboxes, which does sound like a likely tactic.
Posted by: Lurkbot | November 1, 2008 8:02 PM
Never underestimate people's stupidity. My wife has a friend who was ll bent out of shape because the polls weren't open on "Super Tuesday." Maryland doesn't have its primary on "Super Tuesday."
I suspect that we should automatically register every citizen at age 18, and fine those who don't vote. Should be a pretty good source of revenue, at least for the first couple of election cycles.
Posted by: BaldApe | November 1, 2008 8:09 PM
I was almost fooled by it when I read it. And I don't consider myself especially "stupid". I think these continual "dirty tricks" are really confusing a lot of people.
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | November 1, 2008 8:21 PM
It's one of those frustrating realities of life. I agree with Science Avenger. It sure would be nice if those who voted actually knew something about the issues or candidates and were making informed decisions, or were intelligent enough to understand the nuanced difference between talking with someone and capitulating to someone. But in the reality based world, I have to also agree with Ben Lillie that the only fair way to decide who gets to vote is to ensure that everyone votes. It's not the best way, but it is the only fair way.
And, while having politicians in charge of things may not be the greatest solution either, imagine how much worse it could be if we had actual direct democracy, rather than the representative democracy we've come to know and loathe. ;-)
Posted by: Scott | November 1, 2008 8:44 PM
BaldApe: I like the idea of fining people who don't vote. It doesn't have to be much, just a token amount to remind people of what they are giving up. Everyone talks about the rights of citizens, and very few people talk about the responsibilities of citizenship. One of the very few political responsibilities is that of voting. Yes, it is a right as well. But you can't complain about the results if you can't even be bothered to vote.
(Of course I've got it easy. I'm in Oregon and get to vote by mail. It must be hard in those states where you have to stand in line for hours.)
Posted by: Scott | November 1, 2008 8:56 PM
Hey, it's America. Over 60 % of the country are party members and already have their party affiliation proudly displayed on their voter registration card. Vote? Private? Not if you ever want to vote in a primary.
Elsewhere on this planet, parties are membership organizations, with membership fees and all, and party membership is kept separate from voter registration. I mean, really, the stupid oxide, it stinks.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 1, 2008 9:04 PM
As I just said: it's America. If you live in a safe state, why should you bother voting? Why really?
Abolish the electoral college, and watch participation immediately jump up to European levels. (That's still pathetic, but not that pathetic.)
Posted by: David Marjanović | November 1, 2008 9:08 PM
Before we lose sight of the original fake letter: I suppose "follwing" could be dismissed as a typo, but "electorial" (twice) is pretty illiterate to be in a State document. Is that the level of things you get in the mail from the State of Virginia? Just asking....
Posted by: Lurkbot | November 1, 2008 9:18 PM
Daniel Kim asked if these voter suppression tricks really are more common coming from Republicans, or does it just appear so to him because he only read liberal blogs (very thoughtful, I might add, recognizing the possiblity of selective attention bias).
I'm a libertarian, so perhaps I am less potentially biased on this issue, and it seems to me, too, that Republicans are more likely to do this. As I don't think Democrats are inherently more honorable in conducting electoral politics (my friend in Iowa claims to have been asked by Obama workers to make illegal campaign contributions, for example), the apparent disparity needs an explanation to make it plausible.
I think I have such an explanation, although I would emphasize that it's just a hypothesis. Democrats pick up far more votes from the uneducated, the poor, and minorities. Those groups are, I would think, particularly susceptible to voter suppression. Certainly wealthy and educated people are going to be harder to fool into not getting to the polling place.
If Democrats are, as I suspect, no more honorable in electoral politics, that would mean they have some other tricks they tend to run more often than Republicans. I don't have a good hypothesis as to what those would be, however.
Posted by: James Hanley | November 1, 2008 10:39 PM
Leni -
Here in OR, the ballot by mail has really made it a lot easier for the sort of folks you're concerned about, to vote at all. If they are going to have trouble getting over to a mail drop-box, do you honestly think the polling station is going to be better? Part of the reason OR has mail in ballots, is because it makes it easier for a lot of folks to vote.
And it really would be tough to organize the theft of ballots. People have been sending in their ballots for days now and will continue to through Tuesday. Though after Friday, it is recommended they be dropped off at a official ballot drop-off point - of which there are many.
But you can see how this would make it a challenge to rig elections this way.
Science Avenger -
Let me take some of your heat.
He's fucking well right people. He may not have put it very politely (though he was moreso than I usually am), and he may have used rather poor examples, but he's bloody well right at the heart of it. While I disagree with pol taxes, intelligence test requirements and the like, I see no reason to encourage fucking morons to vote. And that is just what a lot of these voter registration drives do, aside from inundating everyone with "are you registered to vote?" five or six times a fucking day (at least in Portland).
I am all for people having the right to vote. I even have issues with some places making it hard for, say, the homeless to vote. I believe absolutely, that every citizen should have a right to vote, with the exception of people who are incarcerated at the time of an election (after they're out, they should be allowed to vote again). But I see no reason to encourage every fucking moron to vote. Nor do I see a reason not to make it reasonably easy to void one's ballot.
Yes, I have fucked up and pressed the wrong button at times. Shit happens. But you know what? When the stakes are important, I double and even triple check to make sure I got it right. I have done a lot of work in my day, utilizing very expensive materials. Jobs where fuck-ups are going to really hurt. When dealing with those kind of stakes, I have had zero actual fuck-ups, though I had to restart my markings, because I caught a fuck-up before it became actual and ruined the materials.
If you can't be bothered to make sure you got it right, then I'm not going to be terribly sympathetic.
Bob Foster -
Voting for the candidate who promises them the most money is a sign of intelligence.
Nope. Voting for the candidate that is going to take a few more of my dollars and get more and better cops on our streets would be intelligent. Voting for the candidate who is going to take a little more of my cash and invest it in infrastructure for more light rail lines is intelligent. Voting for the candidate who is going to take a little more of my cash and make sure my son's teacher isn't buying classroom supplies.
Being a narrow twit that thinks only of what is in their pocket, rather than essential services that are lacking in their community, is a sign of shallow intellect.
Scott -
I like the idea of fining people who don't vote.
Really? Does that include people who choose not to vote in a particular race, or just people who don't vote at all? What about folks who really don't know enough about any of it, to be comfortable voting? (I know several people who fit that and choose not to, or worse, vote the way the first person they ask tells them they should - I live in the ghetto)
Personally, I have only voted once for president - Nader in '00. I subsequently discovered that his views on right to die issues, are at polar opposition to my own and that his anti-prohibition advocacy (little as he makes of it) is only for marijuana, so I could not vote for him again. I absolutely refuse to vote for anyone I wouldn't like to see in the oval office, so I abstain.
Should I be fined for that?
Posted by: DuWayne | November 2, 2008 12:01 AM
Yes. I think it is notable that this sort of thing is happening in heddle's district. This is such a low life thing to do.
Posted by: eddie | November 2, 2008 12:09 AM
We fine people who don't vote. Seems to work quite well.
Though really, it's people who don't turn up and get their names checked off the list who get fined. No-one checks that your ballot paper is filled out. You could draw a picture of a kitteh on it, if you didn't actually want to vote.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | November 2, 2008 1:04 AM
We have a republic and electoral college in America for a reason. The founding fathers knew that someday a candidate without scruples would dupe the more simpleminded among us and it would be up to the educated and scrupulous to rain all over their parade. CONSTITUTIONAL ELITISM FTW!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: Lycosid | November 2, 2008 1:10 AM
DuWanyne - The simple questions deserve simple answers, Yes.
You SHOULD be fined for not going to vote (unless you've got a really good reason*), whether or who you vote for is your business.
That's the way it works here, and it works well. Voter fraud is almost unheard of and "informal" votes make up only a few percent of all votes cast.
Just my $0.013 worth -DJ
*such as "I was jammed in a crevice in the floor of a cave for two days and was passing in and out of consciousness due to a lack of food and my diabetes, as I was rescued late on polling day I couldn't get to a polling station", for example.
Posted by: DingoJack | November 2, 2008 1:23 AM
DuWayne said:
This is an argument for not voting? Admittedly, since they had to destroy the Great Society and the New Deal first, and had a few people digging in their heels trying to restrain them this time, it took the Republicans 28 years to structurally destroy the economy, when they accomplished the same thing in eight in the 20s, but they must never be given their head again! Vote!
Lycosid said:
I don't think that was the rationale for the Electoral College, but even if it was, the effect now is that we have 2/3 of the states with 1/3 of the population and a solid majority in the EC, that also happen to be the most benighted backwaters in the country. The Electoral College has to go! We expect and believe that Obama is going to win about 55/45, but that's not really good enough for a Democrat to be sure of victory any more.
If the Rethuglicans do lose this time, I expect their next tactic to be secession movements in individual states, creating new states each with those two unearned Electoral votes. Personally, I would love to cast Eastern Washington into Outer Darkness, but not if it means creating another Red State.
Posted by: Lurkbot | November 2, 2008 1:37 AM
DJ -
It is not my job to stop voter fraud, nor do I believe that I have a duty to do so. I vote because I believe in democracy, but I will not vote for anyone I don't want to see in a particular office. This means that I don't vote much outside municipal and state elections and ballot measures. I also vote much more out here in Portland, than I did in Michigan - mainly because I actually appreciate a lot of the candidates. And here in Portland, no one runs as a republican, so everyone pretty much runs indie.
I am pretty sure I won't vote nearly as much, when I get back to MI. It's not because I don't want to, it's because a) I haven't paid much attention to MI politics in the last few years and b) I am quite certain the options will be as repulsive. Too, due to the economy, the stakes are just really frightening.
I will likely register and will vote - I'll have one in public schools and will be damned if I'm not going to have my say. But quite honestly, if I didn't have that stake I probably wouldn't even register. I don't plan on being there more than a couple years and excepting that I have family there, could care less. I love Portland and I love Oregon - that and the politics is just more fun here.
The thing is, I am thoughtful about my voting decisions and take great exception to the notion that they wouldn't be honored, no matter what they might be. And beyond that, it is also my right, though I choose not to act upon it, to be entirely thoughtless in my decision to abstain. Honestly, I would much rather folks who don't care, not vote. (thus my attitude about voting in MI)
..."informal" votes make up only a few percent of all votes cast.
But even a few percent of all votes can influence the outcome of an election - why let those who don't care or are otherwise voting against their will have any influence at all?
Posted by: DuWayne | November 2, 2008 1:49 AM
Duwayne - yes a few percent can change the balance. However comparing the informal vote here to the Presidential turn-out is informative:
In 2004 (last directly comparable date)
Australian Federal Election* turnout: 94.57%
... of whom percent informal voters: 4.50%
Compared to:
US Presidential Election turnout: 56.69%
Thus while some 90% of voters were interested enough to vote properly here, in the US only around 50% managed to do this. I doubt the average Australian is 59% smarter than the average American, judging by the posters here anyway. ;)
On a happier note, I agree with you totally, given the choice, I think I would opt for OR too (although AZ appeals too somehow. It's hot, but it's a DRY heat+) - DJ
*Federal election 2004. House of Representatives (lower house) 5.2% Informal; 94.32% turn out, Senate (upper house0 3.9& Informal; 94.52% turn out
Source Australian Electoral Commission. http://www.aec.gov.au
+"Knock it off Hudson.".
Posted by: DingoJack | November 2, 2008 2:27 AM
The answer to this is to make it a felony punishable by 10 years in prison, to pay for, produce, or distribute any information that misleads voters as to the dates and/or times of elections, the locations of polling places, or the criteria for eligibility to vote.
Throw a few of these bastards in prison and we'll see this problem stop in one election cycle.
Fraud isn't free speech. Otherwise, I have a bridge for sale, and don't complain about the title or deed.
Posted by: g347 | November 2, 2008 3:26 AM
1. Is there any evidence that this is actually an attempt to suppress the vote and not just a joke?
2. As others have alluded, Australia has mandatory voting - in practice mandatory showing up at the polling booth and taking a ballot.
Generally speaking, 95% or more of registered voters actually cast a valid vote.
If a high voter turn-out was likely to cause disaster you'd think it would have done so here by now.
Posted by: Ian Gould | November 2, 2008 6:55 AM
Well, throughout the last few elections, pamphlets with this exact message have been distributed in mostly black (read: Democratic) areas...
Posted by: David Marjanović | November 2, 2008 7:38 AM
In fairness, the Democrats aren't entirely innocent. In Maryland, when a a liberal-leaning government was setting up additional polling places, they were disproportionally placed in primarily Democratic ares of the state. (Just read that this morning in the Washington Post online, but I already deleted the email, so I don't have a reference)
Posted by: BaldApe | November 2, 2008 8:24 AM
DuWayne said:
"Personally, I have only voted once for president - Nader in '00. I subsequently discovered that his views on right to die issues, are at polar opposition to my own ...so I could not vote for him again....
Should I be fined for that?"
No, you shouldn't be fined for that. But, you should, by your own criteria and in your own words, be labeled as a "fucking moron" for voting that way. ;D
And maybe you shouldn't be allowed to vote anymore. WWAFMD?
:D
Posted by: Gingerbaker | November 2, 2008 8:55 AM
DJ -
So ninety percent cast a serious vote, please explain why that is necessarily a good thing. Because I honestly don't see it. No one has ever given a satisfactory answer to why we should really want such huge turnouts.
And how is it a good thing to force people who don't care or flat do not want to vote, to influence the election - beyond their choice to abstain?
Gingerbaker -
My only real stupid was buying Nader's line. The venue I saw him in was rife with libertarians and the message was geared to them - i.e. he gave a lot of lip service to personal autonomy, to me, the most important issue in politics.
I also was and still am, very keen on many green party election reform ideas, most importantly, the notion of runoff voting. That got me.
The problem that really does put me in the fucking moron crowd, was the naive notion that Nader wasn't a real politician - i.e. I thought he was honest.
And maybe you shouldn't be allowed to vote anymore.
Again, I do not support disallowing anyone to vote (unless they are incarcerated at the time of the election), I just don't think it's necessarily a good thing to have more voters.
Posted by: DuWayne | November 2, 2008 10:49 AM
Re: Fines for not voting.
Are you really free if you don't have the right to not participate?
What about people whose religious values tell them to avoid earthly matters such as politics? I suspect the Amish and Hutterites tend not to vote, and they may not be the only ones. Should we fine them as well?
Or if we allow a religious exemption, why not also allow a philosophical exemption?
Posted by: James Hanley | November 2, 2008 11:13 AM
DuWayne - let's conduct a thought experiment.
Imagine you assemble 1000 'voters' and issue each with a card marked printed with either "candidate A" or "candidate B", with instructions that they MUST vote for the candidate marked on their card. Let's suppose, in fact, 52% have "candidate A" and 48% have "candidate B". If all 'voters' cast their ballots, then the expected outcome would have candidate A leading by 4 points.
Let's say that 500 'voters' are forced to pay a fine if they don't go to vote, and 500 are told they can vote if they want to.
It is probable in the free voting system only the most motivated voters with actually cast their ballots (say 50%). In the 'forced' scenario only the really uncommitted would not vote (say 10%).
In the 'free' scenario would record 250 votes, giving a margin of error of perhaps 6%, the "forced scenario would record perhaps 450 votes with a margin of error of say 2%.
Thus it would be more likely in the former scenario that the candidate who was elected would be the candidate B (ie the 'wrong' candidate), than in the latter scenario.
That is, with fewer data points, the margin error becomes greater. Thus the chance of electing the candidate favoured by the minority of the aggregate of voters is higher, particularly in a tight race (what is the greatest margin of popular votes won in a Presidential election?).
More data points = greater accuracy of the poll = more likely to be the majority choice.
If you want less data points, how about just letting the President decide who will be his (or her) successor, or some random guy you found in the bathroom of the Young Republicans, or Todd Palin, or even Michael Palin. Saves on all those messy Primaries, stump speeches, debates, rallies and robocalls. Who needs data points! - ;) DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 2, 2008 11:49 AM
Quoth lurkbot:
In all fairness, the mortgage meltdown and bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are largely due to Democratic initiatives intended to buy minority votes; the pressure for loose lending standards and delegation of authority to groups like ACORN came from Democratic pols like Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd (both of whom should have been asked to resign by the party leadership), and was opposed by Republicans.Posted by: Engineer-Poet | November 2, 2008 1:19 PM
I'm with James Hanley.
Is it better to have majority voter turnout because people are trying to avoid punishment (i.e., a fine) or better to have middling turnout where many of the people actually truly care and are informed? Which is more representative of reflection, maturity, and responsibility: doing something "cus I hafta", or contributing out of a desire to do so? In what way is compulsive democracy freedom?
(um, but don't get me wrong, I luuuuuv Australia, even Canberra. But that's cus of the people. And the meat pies. And the minties and the XXXX and wombats and roundabouts and Luna Park and heat in December).
Posted by: marnk | November 2, 2008 2:03 PM
DuWayne wrote:
Well, in the state I live in, absentee ballots can be mailed, emailed or faxed. You don't have to go to the poll, necessarily. As things are now (in this state), there simply aren't enough mail in ballots to warrant organized theft. Typically, the elections are not all that close. 2004 was the exception, but Obama is ahead in double digits. Stealing a few ballots in a non-battleground state just isn't going to be worth the effort.
I was thinking more along the lines of everyone's ballots being in their mailboxes over the period of a few weeks prior to the election. It would be relatively easy to steal them, and certainly not much more difficult than going door to door leaving illegal pamphlets. And if my own mailbox is any indication, pretty much any addled bum with a serious drug problem can manage it with little difficulty. I can't send out a Christmas card much less a ballot, and I don't even live in a high-crime area.
Anyway, I wasn't suggesting it would be widespread. I don't think it would be. I think it would be targeted against the same groups that are currently targeted: the elderly, poor, or minority districts and neighborhoods. I don't know. Call me a cynic, I just don't think it would prevent much of the voter intimidation tactics we currently see and it provides and extra layer of vulnerability. And I'm not convinced Oregon is the best test case for it, either.
Posted by: Leni | November 2, 2008 3:24 PM
Engineer-Poet said:
Couldn't agree less. The lenders were all gung-ho to hand out all the loans they could, knowing the government would cover their losses. All the Clinton administration did was make sure some of those risky loans went to people who actually needed loans.
The current train wreck, like the one in 1929, is the result of 28 years of doctrinaire Smithism (absolute laissez-faire, dog-eat-dog, let-'em-eat-cake, robber-baron-capitalism) running the economy full-tilt into disaster. Plus, of course, the demonization of anyone who suggested moderating this dogma, and threatened wars against any country in the world not willing to embrace it with wild enthusiasm.
Posted by: Lurkbot | November 2, 2008 4:31 PM
Approximately 90% of subprime loans were made by monoline lenders not covered by the Community Reinvestment Act.
but hey let'a ignore that and say the crisis is because them New york Jew liberals be givin' loans to uppity blacks who think they're as good as white folks but are too shiftless to work for a living like normal people.
After all, assigning blame on a partisan basis is far more important than working out what actually happened.
Posted by: Ian Gould | November 2, 2008 6:49 PM
Marnk - Best not to mix XXXX with Luna Park or roundabouts, that can get messy.
If you like roundabouts you'll love this then :) DJ
Re: Voting styles
Yes, silly Dingo, 90+% of the population giving their input on who should rule the country is MUCH WORSE than only c55% of REALLY committed people doing so, how could I be so stupid!
With that logic why not hold the Presidential poll in a disused men's' room, tucked away in a sub-sub basement, without lights or stairs, in bottom drawer of a locked filing cabinet marked "Beware of the Leopard"? One would have to be REALLY, REALLY committed to vote, so the poll would far superior to (here's a wild idea) letting a majority actually decide! I mean that would NEVER work! There'd be rioting on the streets AND tears before bedtime, just like in...oh no wait...nevermind ;)
Posted by: DingoJack | November 2, 2008 8:31 PM
DJ -
In the 'free' scenario would record 250 votes, giving a margin of error of perhaps 6%
How the hell do you come by a 6% margin of error? Sure, there are considerably less voters, but every single one of them cared enough to actually go the to poll. One would assume that the vast majority who choose to vote, are doing so because they want the candidate to win or the ballot measure to pass. I will accept that there will probably still be a margin of error, but because the people are there by choice, it would be infinitesimally small.
More data points = greater accuracy of the poll = more likely to be the majority choice.
Again, why is that preferable? What is the advantage of bringing in the opinions of people who outside the force of law, wouldn't bother to give their input? Finding a true majority choice, doesn't seem like an important enough goal to warrant the abrogation of freedom.
And the margin of error for the opinions of actual voters is virtually nonexistent, when everyone votes because they want to. The margin of error you describe is enough to call a close election and calls into question whether or not the person elected or issue decided, was actually the will of the electorate (I just don't see the guy who pulls levers because he has a gun to his head and could care less, as part of the electorate).
If you want less data points, how about just letting the President decide who will be his (or her) successor, or some random guy you found in the bathroom of the Young Republicans, or Todd Palin, or even Michael Palin. Saves on all those messy Primaries, stump speeches, debates, rallies and robocalls. Who needs data points!
But that isn't remotely what I am talking about. It's not a matter of wanting less data points, as it is about not wanting inherently flawed data points. And data points that come from people who are there because of the gun to the head, are absolutely and inherently flawed. Likewise, the data points that come from people who would otherwise not care enough to actually go out and voice their opinion, are at the least suspect.
People who don't care or otherwise don't wish to participate in a particular election, absolutely should not vote, certainly should not be forced to.
Leni -
Well, in the state I live in, absentee ballots can be mailed, emailed or faxed.
Here in Oregon, your ballot is sent to the address you're registered at. It can be filled out in minutes and all you have to do is seal the envelope and drop it in the mail. It is not just handy for the elderly et al, it also has dramatically increased voter turnout, because there is nothing to turn out for. The other benefit is that it also means you have plenty of time to sit and think about it. Given that Oregon produces a prolific number of ballot measures every year, this can be very important. Too, it also means that a great many more people vote in off schedule elections, where a great many of ballot measures end up. This is possibly the most important place to actually have better turnout, because in many places there is little turnout for these sorts of votes and often times a small group can manage to slip ballot measures under the radar.
It would be relatively easy to steal them, and certainly not much more difficult than going door to door leaving illegal pamphlets.
Not really, because you can pass out pamphlets all at once, you would literally have to make daily passes to steal the ballots from people's boxes, because you don't know when any given person is going to put it in there. Too, stealing ballots is a lot riskier than passing out fliers.
I don't know. Call me a cynic, I just don't think it would prevent much of the voter intimidation tactics we currently see and it provides and extra layer of vulnerability.
I just don't see it. Registered voters cannot be convinced by any asshole that they are ineligible to vote. If they got a ballot in the mail, they are legal to vote. They cannot be told to vote on a different day or at a non-existent station or the wrong one. That's a hell of a lot of prevention of the tactics that we see now.
And your extra layer of vulnerability is weak tea. It is logistically complicated to try to steal ballots out of mail boxes. These things are getting sent in for more than a week. Even if you had folks going out to steal ballots on a daily basis, they are going to either miss some or get caught because they are stealing them too close to the time the mail is picked up.
On top of that, a lot of people just don't put high risk mail in their boxes, they drop them in public boxes - this would include ballots. It would be exceedingly difficult to effectively steal any great number of ballots in a given neighborhood.
And I'm not convinced Oregon is the best test case for it, either.
Why not? It's been extraordinarily effective here. The main reason it was pushed and passed in the first place, was because of the huge number of ballot measures complicating things. Other than that, there is nothing unique about Oregon that would make mailin ballots more effective or especially safer here. Just because the largest population in Oregon tends to be center left to the extreme left, doesn't mean that our politics are bereft of conflict and nutjobs. There are plenty of folks here who would love to suppress this vote or that.
Posted by: DuWayne | November 2, 2008 9:53 PM
DuWayne, I'm not saying voting by mail is bad. I'm saying I don't think it would prevent the kind of fraud and abuse we currently see per se, and that in some places it could possibly encourage more abuse because it adds an extra layer of vulnerability. Added opportunity for mischief.
Where there's a will, there's a way.
It would take a couple of weeks of regular canvassing by dedicated people. Just like it takes for passing out legal fliers. Not that difficult.
I am one of those people who puts no mail in my outgoing box for the simple reason that is exceedingly easy to steal. And I know for a fact it's not that hard to check on regular basis because it happens to me on a regular basis. If I were elderly and/or disabled and lived in a place where elections were close, and everybody was sending in ballots, and I had a legitimate fear of fraud or theft, I'd be even more worried about putting it in the mailbox. Not less.
As for why not Oregon- It's not typically a battleground state. Which is probably a large part of the reason it works well there. It's fairly homogeneous and not particularly urban. If there was a concerted and directed attempt to steal votes in the hopes of swinging a presidential election, it probably wouldn't happen in Oregon for primarily pragmatic reasons. Low concentrations of targets and not much chance of success. It would most likely happen in (for example) Ohio, Florida, or Pennsylvania. The same places the "shenanigans" are currently happening.
I think it's a a good option with a lot of positives, and I am glad that my state offers it, but I don't think it's a solution to fraud.
Posted by: Leni | November 3, 2008 12:29 AM
Quick addendum:
Mostly- I just don't think it would work everywhere. I'd rather we had options. Oregon could do what works for Oregon and Ohio could do what works for them.
Aside from that, the reason for the original comment was to respond to someone who suggested that the postal service would be untrustworthy. My point really just boils down to, were mail in ballots used everywhere and exclusively, the Post Office would be the least of our concerns. Not that mail-in ballots are inherently bad.
Posted by: Leni | November 3, 2008 12:44 AM
Leni -
I'm saying I don't think it would prevent the kind of fraud and abuse we currently see per se,...
What single fraud have we seen perpetrated that could work in a mailin ballot scenario? The ballot is sent to the address the voter gave when they registered. They also make it very clear that if you move, you have to re-register at your new address. If you get a ballot, you are absolutely legal to vote. There is absolutely no way that any of the polling place scams would fly, because there are no polling places. Need to drop it in a official ballot collection site - doesn't matter if it's in a different county, you can drop it and your vote still counts.
If I were elderly and/or disabled and lived in a place where elections were close, and everybody was sending in ballots, and I had a legitimate fear of fraud or theft, I'd be even more worried about putting it in the mailbox. Not less.
Which is why a lot of people use public boxes. There are three of them within two blocks of my apartment and seven of them close to places I visit at least once a week. I understand that there are less in the suburbs, but even there, it is hard not to find one by the grocery store or any number of other stores. People who are concerned about their mail being stolen (such as yourself) probably already use them and would use them for their ballots.
As for why not Oregon- It's not typically a battleground state.
As far as dems versus republicans, no. And you're right, it would be ridiculous to try to perpetrate fraud in the presidential campaign. But there are a lot of political battles being fought on a regular basis here and a lot of it is just as contentious as any republicrat bullshit.
It's fairly homogeneous and not particularly urban.
You're joking right? Oregon doesn't have the population overall, but the population that we have is by a large percentage urban. You're talking about a state that prides itself on planned high population density. In fifteen years or so, most of the suburbs of Portland will have population density similar to what Portland has now - Portland in turn, will be on it's way to the highest population density in the U.S.
And people seem to take for granted that Oregonians are all just liberals. First, there are conservatives, get out of the urban centers, and you find pretty much nothing but. Second, the spectrum of liberals, runs from slightly left of center, to those who think Castro is a great guy and Chavez is a fucking god. On top of all that, libertarians are fucking rampant. There is even a decent smattering of Libertarians, some of whom are really keen on ballot measures and get them out there with great regularity.
Mostly- I just don't think it would work everywhere. I'd rather we had options. Oregon could do what works for Oregon and Ohio could do what works for them.
I don't understand why not. I am all for states doing what they want (within reason, some of the bullshit goes to far when it has such a profound effect on the rest of the country), but I honestly don't understand the problem. The benefits are immense and I really don't see how much of the voter fraud we have seen could be applied to them.
Another benefit, aside from those I have already listed, is that it takes the pressure off those who are easily stressed and aren't really sure (such as some elderly folk).
Posted by: DuWayne | November 3, 2008 1:57 AM
The argument between Australians and Americans over compulsory voting seems ultimately to come down to this - the great majority of people prefer the system they're accustomed to.
Interestingly, most Europeans, who also generally speaking have non-compulsory voting, tend to side with the Americans on this.
But they're w3rong and we're right.
Posted by: Ian Gould | November 3, 2008 2:44 AM
chacun à son goût - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 3, 2008 2:53 AM
Quoth Lurkbot:
Really? Tell me, what's laissez-faire about government mandates to lend to "underserved" (because un-creditworthy) people? What's laissez-faire about government subsidy of such lending via purchase and securitization of debt? What's laissez-faire about the taxpayer on the hook for losses?Of course. Government had made that the only game in town, because private lenders couldn't compete with the interest-rate subsidy enjoyed by the GSE's. The taxpayer paid twice: once in lost tax revenue to the tax-exempt GSE's, and again in bailouts.
What "need" was served by prompting people to buy into a bubble with terms leaving them upside-down and guaranteed to default at the least financial mishap? The people who promoted this without any heed to the consequences should be named, shamed and drummed out of their positions of responsibility (Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, and all the social-activist groups which used the CRA to blackmail themselves into authority over Other People's Money).
The current train wreck is at least 75% due to a well-understood phenomenon: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Posted by: Engineer-Poet | November 3, 2008 5:58 AM
Ian Gould -
It's not that I prefer the U.S. system, indeed I think the U.S. system is drastically flawed in a great many ways. It's just that I find the notion of legally requiring one to vote, to be antithetical to the democratic process, antithetical to any notion of freedom and frankly, obscene. I view it much the way I view speech restrictions really.
Posted by: DuWayne | November 3, 2008 1:58 PM
Duwayne - pay attention, one is required GO TO VOTE, not VOTE per se.
One could go to the polling place, get one's name ticked off, get the ballot papers, then place them into the ballot box without even marking them (in fact around a third of informal voters do just that).
However the enforced turnout ensures that even with 9% of the ballots being informal (a high value last seen in 1992), more voters vote, thus the poll more accurately reflects what the people are thinking (as I said above).
But as I also said "to each his own". -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | November 3, 2008 9:50 PM
DJ -
pay attention, one is required GO TO VOTE, not VOTE per se.
Actually, I have been paying attention and you weren't at all clear on that point. Indeed, you gave me the impression of the opposite. That does clear a lot of my objections, except the most obvious - it's still an abrogation of freedom. The only time in my life the state has told me what to do and when I could do it, has been on occasions when I've been incarcerated (never for long and mostly due to stupidity).
To each their own indeed, but I simply could not countenance the government forcing me to do something like going to the poll.
Posted by: DuWayne | November 3, 2008 11:49 PM