Milwaukee Police Delayed Investigating Voter Fraud
Wow. Here’s a stunning, if not too surprising, report from Dan Bice in the MJS.
Milwaukee police officers sat on their hands for months last year instead of investigating possible voter fraud cases from the 2008 general election.
It’s an incredible claim, but it’s coming from a credible source:
Assistant District Attorney Bruce Landgraf, the Milwaukee County prosecutor responsible for overseeing campaign and election issues.
“Honestly, the Milwaukee Police Department largely ignored your double voter (and other) referrals received in January 2009 for the first six months of 2009,” Landgraf wrote in an e-mail to a city elections official on Jan. 26.
Speaking with unguarded candor, the veteran prosecutor said in his note that MPD’s tardy response had a major impact. The cases involve voters who may have cast more than one ballot, felons who may have voted illegally and other cases of possible election fraud.
“Sadly, several probable cases of genuine voter fraud were harmed by that delay,” Landgraf wrote in an e-mail obtained through an open records request.
The assistant district attorney was even more pessimistic about the investigation of more than 500 individuals who registered to vote on election day but whose addresses could not be confirmed later by postcard.
“I do not expect them to ever get to the Address Cards,” he said of the Milwaukee cops.
On Friday, Landgraf declined to provide specifics, referring questions to his boss, District Attorney John Chisholm.
Interestingly, Chisholm wouldn’t elaborate on his assistant’s concerns.
“I’ll let the e-mail speak for itself,” he said while praising Landgraf’s experience and knowledge.
What Wisconsin needs is a state law that gives the suspect voter information, as identified by Election Inspectors and minicipal clerks, to an investigator from the losing party. Give the cops two weeks to verify fraud and make an arrest, or pass the data along to someone who has the time and inclination to properly investigate the alegations and provide the information to the DA’s office for potential prosecution.
It seems the only phone number anyone knows these days is ‘911!’
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 08, 2010 at 0828 hrs
Another reason we need a November election sweep statewide. Get the voter ID bill passed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 08, 2010 at 0833 hrs
There is no greater way to destroy this nation than to make the average citizen feel that their government id illegitimate. The voter fraud needs to be stopped. People roaming the streets and registering imaginary voters, multiple voting, no ID verification at the polling place, excessive absentee voting and loose control over those ballots, poorly trained volunteers at polling places and little oversight of their activities… our electoral process seems more like a banana republic with each passing election. Oddly, whenever youy bring up real reform to the process, the same folks from the same party are always there to say NO! I wonder if they perhaps feel that this fraud benefits them in some way… I’m sure that if they felt threatened by it, they want to do something about it.
Isn’t this lack of investigation just proof of how deeply this fraud and apathy have taken root?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 08, 2010 at 0902 hrs
Another reason we need a November election sweep statewide. Get the voter ID bill passed.
I suggest we go a step further and specify that to vote in Wisconsin you must possess a Wisconsin DL. If you happen to be a student, with another state’s DL, you vote by absentee in your home state. This would, of course, change the makeup of the Dane County and Milwaukee County governments, as well as their state and federal representatives.
I guess ACORN would have a problem with such a measure.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 08, 2010 at 1007 hrs
“Name the names…..”
Hopefully this is the blow to the endemic malaise that Wisconsinites have in regard to voter fraud that we so desperately need. The lefty “deny, deny, deny” strategy really appears to be imploding here, and their hypocrisy in regards to voter disenfranchisement is really splayed out for all to see this time.
It is time to get our elections back on track here in this state. We need voter ID…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 08, 2010 at 1035 hrs
Malaise? Wisconsin Legislatures passed three voter ID bills. Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle vetoed all three.
It’s not maliase, it’s fraud. Even MPD is in on it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 08, 2010 at 1111 hrs
Malaise? Wisconsin Legislatures passed three voter ID bills. Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle vetoed all three.
I guess I should have said “Milwaukee and Dane county” instead of WI… Outstate folks get it, but ‘round these parts I hear alot of the disenfrachisement talk.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 08, 2010 at 1125 hrs
So obviously Wisconsin’s “Democrat” majority is the result of fixed vote tallies which makes it illegitimate, and all laws and mandates passed by them equally illegitimate. If these things are not challenged, and addressed by the minority Republican party is there any chance that Wisconsinites will ever have a Government body it can be confidant in?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 08, 2010 at 1225 hrs
So, let’s see, the worst case alleged is 500 voters who should not have been allowed to vote. How much would that have affected Milwaukee County elections in Nov 2008.
I strongly support honest elections and if there are people who engage in fraudulent voting, they need to be punished, but the wildest claim that the GOP, er, MJS can make tells us that that this didn’t affect anything at all.
No state has ever had perfectly clean elections and none ever will. We always want the corrupt votes to either balance each other out or not to matter. If we can keep the corrupt voting below 0.1%—one vote in a thousand, the chances are that it won’t matter. The allegations that were made in Milwaukee were about at that point.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 08, 2010 at 1903 hrs
So obviously Wisconsin’s “Democrat” majority is the result of fixed vote tallies which makes it illegitimate
Oh, obviously. Heh.
You can count me among those who want fair and clean elections. No, really. Somebody did wrong, prosecute. It benefits no one. There’s no way that enough fraud occurred that it would have changed the outcome of that election. It only feeds the paranoia and hyperventilation of ... well, people like many of the commenters here.
I expect that the fraud of false registration has absolutely nothing to do with actual voting. THese were just door-to-door dubmasses trying to meet their work quota by falsifying some forms. Prosecute, I say. But change an election result? I don’t see how.
People voting twice? Or voting even once when they are not allowed to do so? That’s another matter entirely. That to me is a serious crime and I’d like to see someone cracked but good for it.
I must say a word or two about the selective outrage, however. I don’t recall anyone here being up in arms about all the alleged fraud in Ohio. And someone mentioned the fact that undermining voter confidence in elections could spell the downfall of democracy. But I don’t recall any of those people giving a shit about the undemocratic nature of the electoral college system—or about the supreme court deciding the 2000 election, either. Both of which did a hell of a lot more to undermine confidence in the system than any of these ACORN yahoos did.
Posted by scott on March 08, 2010 at 1910 hrs
Oh Scott.
1) This ain’t Ohio.
2) Alleged is just that. The same folks that came up with the Diebold Bush conspiracy were complaining about police dogs in Florida… of course, no evidence was ever provided.
3) The Supreme Court simply made Florida Democrats obey the laws instead of dimple-chading their way to a Frankenesque fraud. No recount, even the five done by the liberal press, ever found anything other than “Bush Wins”.
4) The electoral college is hardly undemocratic…. in fact, it’s actually a part of that document of negative rights that those uncaring and evil dead white men saddled you with. Also, it has NOTHING to do with Wisconsin voter fraud.
5) If you actually care about systemic voter fraud in Wisconsin (really? Good to hear that.) then you’d have no problem with a system of voter ID? Voter picture ID? Wait, before the wailing starts… voter picture ID provided free of charge all year to those who haven’t got a $10 spot handy. We could even magnetic bar code it these days… quite simply and securely. You’d be for securing the electoral process that way, right? Right?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 08, 2010 at 2032 hrs
Passing over some of the prior baloney…
voter picture ID provided free of charge all year to those who haven’t got a $10 spot handy.
Sure, I’m for that. You let me know when you’ve issued them to each and every eligible Wisconsin resident and I’ll be behind it.
Posted by scott on March 08, 2010 at 2059 hrs
TFG,
I am for taxpayer provided voter IDs just so the conspiracy nuts can’t blame their losses on stolen elections. We all know that voting fraud isn’t changing elections in Wisconsin, but if Republicans want waste taxpayer money on it, I’m fine with it.
I’m not fine with the idea that people ever should get their voting rights taken away for any reason.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 08, 2010 at 2305 hrs
Well Scott, I am actually impressed. You are going against nearly the entire state Democrat Party and siding with the Republicans on the issue of voter ID? Unthinkable, isn’t it. And Mr. Lunch too? Why it’s open rebellion.
Every time a false vote is cast, a legitimate voter is disenfranchised. The solution to 99.5% of fraud is so simple, Drivers License, State ID, or free voter ID… to be presented prior to receiving a ballot, No exceptions.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2010 at 0341 hrs
No, there’d be exceptions. Anyone can cast a provisional vote. Forgot, lost or expired card? Provisional ballot. The validity of which can be verified after the fact.
And, I stress again: I’ll be for such a plan just as soon as you’ve issued the cards to all eligible residents of the state. Not before.
Posted by scott on March 09, 2010 at 0839 hrs
scott: “I expect that the fraud of false registration has absolutely nothing to do with actual voting.”
We’re supposed to take comfort in “your” assumptions that voter fraud has no meaningful effect on an election’s outcome? Sorry scott, the Democrats have, and continue to prove they’re willing to do anything it takes to force their socialist agenda on the American people, and personally I no longer believe the Democrats have the ability or desire to work within the constraints of our system to get their bull crap bills passed legally. No one wants Nationalized Health Care, no one wants doyle and Barrett’s train line, no one wants more Government programs that re-distributes the earnings of the tax paying public, nor the myriad other asinine ideas the Democrats hold dear to their hearts that cost Billions of dollars but produce nothing of value. Yet these bills are being passed without majority consent, so the only conclusion to be reached is the people’s wishes are being undermined by a corrupted political system, which all indicators point to as being spearheaded by the Liberal Democrats. Trusting a Democrat (you) to be forthright about voter fraud is as much folly as strolling on the freeway and expecting not to get run over.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2010 at 0928 hrs
We’re supposed to take comfort in “your” assumptions that voter fraud has no meaningful effect on an election’s outcome?
Of course not. We’ll investigate and prosecute. I’m just saying: there’s a difference between casting a fraudulent vote and just BSing a few registration forms so you can knock off early from you canvasing job.
the Democrats have, and continue to prove they’re willing to do anything it takes to force their socialist agenda on the American people
And here comes the crazy…
the only conclusion to be reached is the people’s wishes are being undermined by a corrupted political system, which all indicators point to as being spearheaded by the Liberal Democrats.
Yes that is the only conclusion. Clearly.
In the past this is where I would appeal to saner conservatives in this forum to speak up with more moderate words—but I know better these days.
Posted by scott on March 09, 2010 at 0939 hrs
I see Scott, I knew there’d be a bit of weaseling someplace in your support for fair elections. I hope that you are not implying that it’s the states responsibility to find you and register you. That does appear to be what you are saying. If so, then I rescind my good impression and my new found hope for the members of your political party. If not, then please clarify.
While I can agree on a provisional ballot…. just as we do right now, I’d say that people are responsible for getting down and registering if they want to vote. There are things we could do to have shut ins visited, but if you can’t make the effort to register for your voting rights, then they obviously don’t mean that much to you.
As to the ascertion that fraud has little meaningful effect… then why are the Democrats so fired up to prevent any kind of meaningful reform? It seems that Democrat politicians feel that losing the fraud vote would not be beneficial to them…. else why would they continue to allow it to exist.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2010 at 0940 hrs
And, I stress again: I’ll be for such a plan just as soon as you’ve issued the cards to all eligible residents of the state. Not before.
Why? You think the people who are so apathetic about our Government that they don’t bother to get one for themselves, that don’t answer the census, that don’t vote anyway, should be tracked down and physically restrained so the picture can be taken and they are handed an ID? I assume you think they should be given a restaurant type gadget that will blink when it is time to vote and choices will appear on the little screen too.
Personally, I think you are being a bit ridiculous. I know you are thinking of the mythical little old lady who has no ID and no way to get transportation for her and her 152 cats, but I think some sort of action group could be used to pick up people to get in for a free ID as long as they show the interest in getting one with a phone call or something. (If that lady does exist how does she get in to vote?) How about a picture ID booth at the voting site, open a week or two before the election and on election day? If they have the means to get in to vote, they can get the ID at the same place.
After all, if you are making it illegal to not have the ID, (probably the only way to to even try to guarantee that everyone gets one) then someone without it would be ineligible to vote as a lawbreaker…
I’m not fine with the idea that people ever should get their voting rights taken away for any reason.
Liberty is an inalieble right, yet we routinely take that away from convicted lawbreakers. I would say your right to pursue happiness is seriously curtailed in prison too, assuming normal appetites. How would the soft on crime party ever not get 80% plus of the criminal vote? No, I think people serving time have lost the right to vote while serving. Ex-cons can vote and that is the way it should be.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2010 at 0943 hrs
then why are the Democrats so fired up to prevent any kind of meaningful reform?
Because the evidence for actual voting fraud—voting more than you’re legally allowed to—is weak and all indications are that it’s a very small issue. Even considering it’s largest problem, absentee balloting. And also because your supposed remedies will depress the turnout of legitimate voters. So stop asking. Now you know why we view your “reforms” with some skepticism.
Posted by scott on March 09, 2010 at 0943 hrs
because your supposed remedies will depress the turnout of legitimate voters. So stop asking. Now you know why we view your “reforms” with some skepticism.
Prove it. Has the photo ID requirement suppressed the purchase of cold medicine? Don’t the poor and elderly deserve the same opportunity for relief of their congestion?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2010 at 0954 hrs
Scott, your continuing denial of a serious problem in the face of actual evidence to the contrary is astounding. We had the son of a congresswoman actively participating in clandestine efforts to suppress voter turnout. We have had ACORN and other groups paying college students on a “per registration basis”, and we have evidence now that the police department has failed to execute the law in several instances of PROVABLE vote fraud. If they are not pushing for prosecution of OBVIOUS cases, just as with drunk driving, how many cases of malfeasance are just altogether ignored whether it be by poll workers, police officers, or prosecutors?
We have evidence of a problem in our elections process. You can minimize it all you want since the fraud obviously benefits the candidates you favor, but every false vote actually denies ME of my constitutional rights… As far as I’m concerned, that alone is enough to warrant action.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2010 at 1003 hrs
My sanity is questionable because I realize the obvious? A poor defense of your party’s propensity for slight of hand tactics, scott. Who is it that benefits from ACORN’s operations, and who is served by the Democrat’s refusal to require voter I.D.? How does observing simple truths equate to an inability to reach logical conclusions? It would seem you are the one deluding yourself as to the path your party has chosen. At this point it matters little because nothing of substance is going to happen in Washington D.C. until the whole corrupt crew leading the country now is eliminated from the political picture completely. In the last 60 years the “power brokers” have incrementally destroyed everything achieved in the previous 170 years, and more often than not it’s been the Liberal Progressive Democrats leading the charge.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2010 at 1010 hrs
TUERQAS -
I agree that my position on voting is in a very small minority. I do not expect my view to prevail, but that does not mean it is not an ideal that should be worked toward. Why should we take the vote away just because someone happens to have been convicted of a crime?
Why do the states that have the most onerous voting restrictions have the longest history of trying to keep non-whites from voting? I’m not arguing for suffrage for all just because of the disparate racial impact of the current laws, I would be opposed to restrictive laws if only white folks from Waukesha County were the victims of the law.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2010 at 1037 hrs
djmamayek -
What do you define as a serious problem?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2010 at 1038 hrs
...At this point it matters little because nothing of substance is going to happen in Washington D.C. until the whole corrupt crew leading the country now is eliminated from the political picture completely. In the last 60 years the “power brokers” have incrementally destroyed everything achieved in the previous 170 years, and more often than not it’s been the Liberal Progressive Democrats leading the charge.
Puhleaze! To blame ‘primarily’ Democrats for the last 30 years of Government growth and corruption is just asinine. To call the amount of fraud in Wisconsin to be in the top 1000 problems that we should be trying to get solutions for right now is equally silly.
Should we institute a voter ID system? Absolutely. It is basic. Will it help solve any of the current problems in our State or National Government? Not a one. If this is a GOP priority of any sort, I doubt they will get any significant number of seats back, nor would/do they deserve them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2010 at 1045 hrs
If you happen to be a student, with another state’s DL, you vote by absentee in your home state.
Why? The college town is where they live. Would you demand that those in the military also vote ‘back home’?
It is also much harder to justify discriminatory voting laws like that, which is why most states either have no such laws or their laws overwhelmingly allow students to vote where they are going to school and military to vote where they are stationed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2010 at 1106 hrs
Scott, it is not our responsibility to issue to each and every elegable voter in the state. This should be the bane of the liberal but unfortunately libs have been breeding the initiative and drive out of the population for at least 2 generations now. All we have to do is make it available, simple, and cheap(free). This idea that we have to save welfare rats the shame of being welfare rats and give them a debit card or the fact that we have to beg the less than favorable members of society to join certain professions so that we can get our numbers up, or that we need to bribe the lazy and useless to take spots at the university so that we look diverse is silly. the pursuit of happiness is the key. The opportunity is there, all they have to do is take it and you can’t even expect them to do that. If they only spent half of the time gainfully working that they spend working the system, they would be pretty well off but as long as we work harder to make sure they don’t we will remain in the same boat that we are now. Make the law picture id, make them available for free at the DMV and see if people will go get them. People get shot in other countrys while they go to vote and you don’t even expect folks to have an id proving that they are who they say they are.
Now to counter the whole DMV is over crowded as it is arguement, make the DMV quota based. You get paid by the quality and throughput. If you don’t, or have lines that are 10 miles long, or move at the speed of mud in Jan flowing uphill then you are gone. we may have to replace the entire staff at the DMV but we can and need to shake things up. if you don’t perform, you don’t work. Private side work ethic.
Posted by fishaddict on March 09, 2010 at 1159 hrs
if only white folks from Waukesha County were the victims of the law.
People are not victims of the law. Rather, the law seeks to prevent uncivil people from making victims of others. (Well, at least it used to back Before the Obama Era) I have no problem removing irresponsible and anti-social voters from the rolls. Voting should be a privileged of citizenship. It is a powerful tool that allows some people power over others. I would hardly care to live in a society that based itself on the beliefs of thugs, thieves, gangsters, and drug addicts. I suspect most people would agree with that… but you’ll probably find some support for your ideas among the hopey-changey crowd.
which is why most states either have no such laws or their laws overwhelmingly allow students to vote where they are going to school and military to vote where they are stationed.
Military members may only vote in the state that they maintain as their residence… the state they pay taxes in…. not the state they are stationed in.
http://legalassistance.law.af.mil/content/legal_assistance/cp/voting_issues_for_servicemembers.pdf
As for students, why should they be allowed a vote if they are not state residents? They don’t pay income taxes in another state…. why let them vote there? You want to vote? Move here and become a resident permanently.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2010 at 1209 hrs
it is not our responsibility to issue to each and every elegable voter in the state.
It is if you are planning on turning away would-be voters who don’t have one.
This idea that we have to save welfare rats the shame of being welfare rats
I’m feeling the love, man. You guys should make this a campaign slogan. It’ll really resonate with a nation full of recession-hurting Americans.
Posted by scott on March 09, 2010 at 1211 hrs
Voting is a RIGHT. You exercise that right by getting your lazy ass to the poll to cast your ballot. No one has to supply you with anything. As a citizen it should matter to you to do what is right, and according to the rules. Again the entitlement mentality causing more problems than it solves. You want to vote? Prove you’re eligible.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2010 at 1225 hrs
Family Guy:
People are not victims of the law. Rather, the law seeks to prevent uncivil people from making victims of others. (Well, at least it used to back Before the Obama Era) I have no problem removing irresponsible and anti-social voters from the rolls.
[emphasis mine]
Was uncalled for.
Have you forgotten the it was the Bush administration which kidnapped an American citizen (Joeseph Padilla) and hel him without trial, charges, access to an attorney (or family) for more than seven years.
The kidnapping of American citizens and legal US residents is just one of the tyrannies of the Bush-Obama regime.
Victims of the law have occured under Clinton, Bush, and continue with Obama. It is simply partisan blindness to not recognize this.
Posted by John Washburn on March 09, 2010 at 1230 hrs
Voting is a RIGHT.
And nobody can deny you that right regardless of what they think of your “laziness” or other personal characteristics.
Posted by scott on March 09, 2010 at 1231 hrs
scott: “And nobody can deny you that right regardless of what they think of your “laziness” or other personal characteristics.”
Your point being? I don’t see where you address any of the other parts of my post.
You want to vote? PROVE you are who you say you are. Where is the problem?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2010 at 1236 hrs
FL,
I applaud working to get everyone the ability (not just the right) to vote, I only disagree with the idea that criminals should have the right to vote while they are serving for a convicted crime. I think it is appropriate that that right is suspended right along with liberty.Above all, I think it is just punishment. Besides that, however, since judges have lost their impartiality at least as concerns partisanship, I think it is an automatic voting block for reduced sentences and early parole. Since they have very little to do, criminals would have a higher voter percentage. They should not have such a direct say in their own incarcerations like that and you know that is exactly what partisan voters would push in the prisons.
Scott:
Voting is a RIGHT.
And nobody can deny you that right regardless of what they think of your “laziness” or other personal characteristics.
What the hell is that supposed to mean? Who is denying a lazy voter the right to vote? There is not one commentor here who is advocating that we deny any lazy person the right to vote.
You are the one who is advocating the ridiculous. You are advocating that voters should only have to get up out of their chair to vote once each election. Most everyone else here is merely suggesting that a voter should get up out of their chair one more time every 10 years or so to have a valid ID and that is only for that miniscule percentage of people who have no ID whatsoever in the first place.
How many people like that do you think there are? How many people do you think there are who do make arrangements to get out and vote, but couldn’t be bothered to first get out and get the free means to vote? I would guess that is it is significantly less than the number of fraudulent votes cast, yet you are passionately dispassionate about those fraudulent votes…huh.
Partisan much?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2010 at 1301 hrs
one of the tyrannies of the Bush-Obama regime.
Bush- Obama regime?? That’s like remarking that there is no difference between dry and wet, hot and cold, or socialist and capitalist. I’ll admit that in his failures, Obama has started turning back to some of the Bush policies that worked… but that’s just because his little gang of college politicians is unable to offer him answers, and he has no real experience in the harsh world beyond his adoring hopey-changeniks. They are hardly the same. You’d have better luck arguing that the moon is made of cheese.
it is not our responsibility to issue to each and every elegable voter in the state.
It is if you are planning on turning away would-be voters who don’t have one.Well, perhaps we should go a step further then. Since you feel that actually going and registering with a valid ID is far too difficult for some (mostly democrat) voters, perhaps we should have someone go door to door with ballots… or include them with Happy Meals. Clearly any effort on the part of any voter is widespread disenfranchisement to you…. while false registrations and impossible to track multi-voting is not. Your priorities and your expectations of the responsibilities and effort of citizenship are awfully weak.
If making you do something simple in order to vote is just too difficult, then I’ve no problem having those people stay home on the couch eating Twinkies and watching Biggest Loser on the TV while their fellow citizens go about the serious business of governing the nation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 09, 2010 at 1343 hrs
Voting is a RIGHT.
And nobody can deny you that right regardless of what they think of your “laziness” or other personal characteristics.
But those willing to commit crimes should be allowed to deny me MY RIGHT to have my vote counted? Hypocrisy, NAAAAAHHHH… Couldn’t be.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2010 at 1208 hrs
I’d ask what the F you were talking about, but I’m afraid I might not understand the answer. My comment that you’re quoting stands on its own, I think. I haven’t seen one argument against it yet that I find compelling.
Posted by scott on March 10, 2010 at 1211 hrs
I’d ask what the F you were talking about, but I’m afraid I might not understand the answer. My comment that you’re quoting stands on its own, I think. I haven’t seen one argument against it yet that I find compelling.
Yes, voting is a right, but you are unwilling to do anything about the fact that this right is being restricted through fraud. I am denied my vote when somebody double votes on the opposite side…. Too tough for you to understand?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2010 at 1550 hrs
If a person who is legally eligible to vote shows up at a polling place he/she must be allowed to vote—even if only provisionally—no matter what he/she has/doesn’t have or how lazy you or anyone else feels they may be. Too tough for you to understand?
You want people to bring a document to the polling place? Fine. When you’ve issued those documents to all eligible voters—AND assured me that they will be able to vote provisionally even if they lose/don’t have/forgot/whatever that document—then I will be behind it.
Posted by scott on March 10, 2010 at 1554 hrs
My comment that you’re quoting stands on its own, I think. I haven’t seen one argument against it yet that I find compelling.
No? Care to compose an answer to comment 35 supporting your answer above?
See, nobody else even thinks the statement makes sense(at least in context to the thread), much less stands on its own so I am curious.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2010 at 1608 hrs
If a person who is legally eligible to vote shows up at a polling place he/she must be allowed to vote—even if only provisionally—no matter what he/she has/doesn’t have or how lazy you or anyone else feels they may be. Too tough for you to understand?
You want people to bring a document to the polling place? Fine. When you’ve issued those documents to all eligible voters—AND assured me that they will be able to vote provisionally even if they lose/don’t have/forgot/whatever that document—then I will be behind it.
Paraphrase: “I love the status quo, it is keeping people I want in office in office. I will never support anything you propose because you are conservative.”
You want a law with no teeth that will do nothing to hamper fraud, you want Gwen Moore’s son, Supreme Allah, to be allowed to slash tires on transport vans for the opposing party with no ramifications (I graduated from UWM with him, believe me, he suffered no ill effects from his felonious behavior). You want to uphold the status quo of a system that allows the parties to continue with corrupt activity. You want to protect people who actually are ACTIVELY suppressing votes through fraud….
We all get it Scott, the fraud helps your candidates get elected, you support it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2010 at 1610 hrs
If a person who is legally eligible to vote shows up at a polling place he/she must be allowed to vote—even if only provisionally—no matter what he/she has/doesn’t have or how lazy you or anyone else feels they may be.
How is that any different, logically from saying that everyone should be provisionally able to drive even without their license and registration?
Voting is a right and a responsibility that half or more of the population shirks in the first place. Part of that responsibility is insuring that your vote is legal. The easiest most ‘lazy friendly’ way of insuring it is to provide a simple proof of identity that most everyone already has and is easily obtainable for those few who don’t..
The Rep party knows that the real vote that would be denied by voter ID is the illegal alien vote, which for multiple reasons is heavily Democrat so it is pro ID for partisan reasons.
However, from a strict position of ‘right vs. wrong’ your cavalier attitude towards voting is really denying that voting is a responsibility as well as a right. So I will continue to disagree with you on strictly non-partisan grounds and continue to try and convince you of that without the partisan crap others insist on flinging.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2010 at 1631 hrs
If a person who is legally eligible to vote shows up at a polling place he/she must be allowed to vote
And this is the point. You should be able to prove that you are legally eligible to vote… Why is that too much to ask? This requirement protects the sanctity of the right to vote for EVERYONE else, and the burden placed upon the individual is infinitetesimally small when compared with the enormous utility of guaranteeing that it is only legally eligible voters casting their ballots.
Furthermore, you seem to be pretty misguided with regards to the right to vote. The 24th amendment (the one to which you seem to allude with regard to the burden of paying for an ID) states:
“The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.”
Making a non drivers license state-id card FREE of charge solves that problem, and dodges the “poll tax” challenge entirely. Those of us who have drivers licenses should be able to use them to vote, those of us who don’t have them should be required to get a FREE state ID card, something everyone should have anyway, since the police can detain you if you do not present identification during a “contact” event.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2010 at 1631 hrs
Your “paraphrase” is more aptly described as “paranoid fantasy.” Likewise everything that follows “you want a law with…”
Because you see I never even mentioned anything about “teeth” in the anti-fraud laws. For all you know, I want those convicted of double-voting beheaded. Such is the amount I’ve actually said or written on the subject. What I am saying is that if you intend to impose some kind of document restriction for voting I want you to issue those documents to everyone beforehand and I want there to be a provisional balloting process for those who are without them for whatever reason. If they can’t demonstrate their eligibility after the fact, toss the vote out. (Hell, don’t even bother with them it unless there’s enough of them to make a difference for all I care.)
Tuquras: “Who is denying a lazy voter the right to vote?”
It’s getting pretty close to that if you set up a system whereby some eligible voters don’t get to vote and you respond by saying “it’s not my fault if they’re too lazy to <fill in the blank>.”
Posted by scott on March 10, 2010 at 1633 hrs
You should be able to prove that you are legally eligible to vote… Why is that too much to ask?
Why are you asking me this? I’m all for demonstrating eligibility. But if that means requiring certain documents, then you have to provide them before hand and have a system of provisional balloting in cases where they are missing. I’ve already addressed this. And if, in the end, eligibility cannot be verified—the vote isn’t counted. Simple. Nobody is threatening your vote.
One almost suspects your real goal is to weed out those “too lazy” to have acquired the correct documents X weeks prior to election day. And I’m not with that.
Posted by scott on March 10, 2010 at 1636 hrs
Actually, it’s simpler still. If you can’t adequately demonstrate eligibility at the polling place, you may only vote provisionally until such time as eligibility can be verified. If it can’t be verified—no vote counted.
Why do you have a problem with this?
Why would anyone?
Posted by scott on March 10, 2010 at 1640 hrs
What I am saying is that if you intend to impose some kind of document restriction for voting I want you to issue those documents to everyone beforehand and I want there to be a provisional balloting process for those who are without them for whatever reason. If they can’t demonstrate their eligibility after the fact, toss the vote out. (Hell, don’t even bother with them it unless there’s enough of them to make a difference for all I care.)
What you are saying is flat out ridiculous and unnecessary besides. Only you are suggesting we give some vague document to everyone and expect them to keep it safe. Then, in addition, you are saying that after we take the time and expense to get this mysterious document to everyone, they don’t need it to actually vote. Excuse me, but that is unconsionably dumb. I have experienced enough instances where you have shown good intelligence that it is particularly annoying when you say such ridiculous things.
Done here.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2010 at 1643 hrs
Actually, it’s simpler still. If you can’t adequately demonstrate eligibility at the polling place, you may only vote provisionally until such time as eligibility can be verified. If it can’t be verified—no vote counted.
Why do you have a problem with this?
Why would anyone?
What is the time frame that you would recommend for suspending the vote counting until these people can confirm their eligibility? Would they have to return to the polling places before close on election day?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2010 at 1723 hrs
When you’ve issued those documents to all eligible voters—AND assured me that they will be able to vote provisionally even if they lose/don’t have/forgot/whatever that document—then I will be behind it.
If you can’t adequately demonstrate eligibility at the polling place, you may only vote provisionally until such time as eligibility can be verified. If it can’t be verified—no vote counted.
That system for provisional voting already exists in accordance with the 2006? HAVA regulations, Scott. If a voter can’t pass the meager checks already in place (which is as little as another voter saying that you have lived at your stated address for 10 days!), they are issued a provisional ballot and asked to present their documentation at a later time in order for the vote to be counted. I’ve issued one or two of those from time to time at a polling place myself. Obviously, there would be a few more such cases if we put a stricter ID requirement into effect, at least at first until folks got used to the new system.
So, knowing that, are you now getting into the real ID game? Or are you happy with a voter registering with a 5 year old paycheck, any completed and unverified lease form, or even another voter simply verbally certifying that you are who you say you are? That really all you need. I can bring a lease signed the day of the election, register at the polls, and then certify that my 3 undocumented cousins live with me and are also here to vote today. That’s what we call fair elections in Wisconsin right now. I know that I’ve allowed people to vote illegally, but without reasonable grounds, no challenge can be issued.
Read all about our fair registration and voting process:
http://elections.state.wi.us/faq_detail.asp?faqid=121&fid=27&locid=47
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2010 at 1728 hrs
Really, I should say that I suspect people have voted illegally… no way to know for sure, as you can’t question that same day lease.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2010 at 1729 hrs
That system for provisional voting already exists in accordance with the 2006? HAVA regulations, Scott.
Not to mention that the most recent voter ID bill that was veto’d by Doyle also had this provisional voting system in place. It’s been talked about here on this blog a number of times, I find it hard to believe that scott is ignorant of that fact.
So scott, I think we have all your requirements covered. Are you game?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 10, 2010 at 1734 hrs
Total Entries: 19998
Total Comments: 134037
Most Recent Entry: 05/24/2012 05:43 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 12:32 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 79
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 03:34 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).