Like hell it doesn't.
But the astonishing assertion that voter fraud doesn't exist found it's way onto this blog in response to my Aug. 8 post that "Voter ID law does not suppress election turnout."
Well, I knew that a favorite progressive/liberal/Democrat trope is that Republicans/conservatives and fellow traveling meanies are trying by all kinds of shabby measures to " suppress" minority voting. Yet little did I expect the flat out, absolutist, unqualified assertion that voter fraud does not exist. Such hell-bent certitude. Especially when such assertions are issued from Chicago--where voter fraud had been raised to a fine art--and from savvy observers whom I thought would know better.
Such certitude in the face of reality can only be explained by blind, partisan ideology.
The "proof" that voter fraud doesn't exist is allegedly found in social science and "scholarly" studies, never mind that so many are notorious for their biases and methodological limits. They are presented as far superior to mere "anecdotal evidence," as if eye witness accounts didn't count.
As a longtime reporter in Chicago, I have first-hand evidence of voter fraud. Including the time when I personally visited homes of people who were listed as registered and voting, but--alas--found people who said, "Yes, that's my name, but I didn't vote. Did someone vote in my place?" Chicago didn't get the reputation of a city where people "vote early and often" for nothing.
People being paid to vote the for the "right" candidate; election judges joining "handicapped" voters in the election booth; tampering with voting machine results after the polls close; trooping skid row bums to polling places to vote under someone else's name; and so on and so on and so on.
You don't have to look far for current evidence of vote fraud. The Better Government Assn. keeps some tabs on it here and here, for example. In New York, the city's Department of Investigations demonstrated how easy and almost undetectable vote fraud is.
DOI undercover agents showed up at 63 polling places last fall and pretended to be voters who should have been turned away by election officials; the agents assumed the names of individuals who had died or moved out of town, or who were sitting in jail. In 61 instances, or 97 percent of the time, the testers were allowed to vote. Those who did vote cast only a write-in vote for a “John Test” so as to not affect the outcome of any contest. DOI published its findings two weeks ago in a searing 70-page report accusing the city’s Board of Elections of incompetence, waste, nepotism, and lax procedures.
Voter fraud, or election fraud, or whatever you want to call it, is not partisan; examples can be found over the years committed by both parties. But here's the irony: By fighting so hard against reasonable safeguards against vote fraud, liberals/progressives/Democrats are demonstrating that they believe most of it is committed by their base: poor, minorities, big city machines and so forth.
Most unreasonable is the fevered opposition to the idea that anyone voting should be able to document that he is whoever he says he is. The question of voter identification has taken on such a frenzy that it has eclipsed rational discussion.
Underlying the argument is the assumption that poor people are so incapacitated and ignorant that they cannot figure out how to summon up the energy and smarts to go through the process. Yet, somehow, they are able to manage the application process for, say, food stamps.
The application process begins the day your DHS office receives your signed application. You will be asked to come to the office for an interview or participate by phone if you are unable to come to the office.
You will be asked for various types of documents such as:
- proof of your identity
- proof of your residence
- proof of Social Security numbers for all people on your application
- other types of documents depending on your circumstances.
The DHS caseworker will tell you what you need to bring.
Is that too complicated? Too inconvenient? Were the people who created these requirements mean? Racist? Trying to starve the poor? By the logic of the no-ID voter advocates, should hungry people seeking food stamps be unburdened of these requirements?
Obviously not. But if you can ascribe selfish political reasons for Republicans wanting voter ID, why can't liberals/progressives/Democrats be accused of wanting wide-open voting because it will facilitate voter fraud that will favor them?
The answer is: Republicans and conservatives are cruel and racist. Liberals/progressives/Democrats are pure of heart and always, always have the highest motives.
You can be notified whenever I add a new post to my blog. It's easy. Type your email address in the box and click the "create subscription" button. My list is completely spam free, and you can opt out at any time.