Maggie's Farm

It is in the politicians' best interest to NOT find fraud, and to deny it exists. If they actually find it, then when they finally lose the office to the opposition, their fraud will be exposed.

It's all a shell game. But I don't see this happening in broad strokes. Remember, in 2004 when Ohio was somehow 'delivered' to the Republicans via voter fraud with the new voting machines? Yeah, I doubt that very much. This kind of fraud is far too visible and easy to root out.

On the other hand, blocking access to a voting station is easy and can be done locally without much media coverage or outrage. Having the dead vote is still something which happens in certain districts. And so on.

Locally, it's possible to engage fraud which benefits whichever party has more pull. I can honestly say that I've never seen any kind of fraud in my district. We're small enough and the people are engaged enough to know what's going on and if something fishy happened, there'd be a hue and cry.

However, 5 miles east is a district which is poorer, less well managed, and undoubtedly likely to play some kind of shenanigans. At the end of the day, my county definitely sees something going on, because we've had one party running the county for years and the nepotism and double-dipping is out of control. But I do live in New Jersey, and if we didn't have some level of corruption, perhaps people would shake their heads and wonder what's going on.

Still, the idea that one party or the other is utilizing massive fraud, or seeking a large scale advantage over the other, is absurd. It's like a team that lost a big game complaining about the refs. Calls go both ways over the course of a game, and you can't put the blame on one call versus another.

Unless you're Green Bay last night on MNF. Then maybe you could. Though I think the real refs could've blown that call, too.

I didn't say it's not happening.

I said it's doubtful that it's as widespread and pervasive as some claim.

If the Democrats have used fraud in every close election, why did the Republicans win the last 2 close ones?

I believe there are regions where fraud is taking place. But there is only so much ballot stuffing you can do. A district that has 200,000 registered voters can't report 350,000 votes - this would be far too obvious and would result in a major investigation.

Assuming 200,000 in a district is an urban area, it's fair to believe it's going to usually swing heavily democratic. So let's say it reports 120,000 votes and the split is 100 Dem to 20 Rep. That 80,000 differential may be fraudulent...but how much? And let's be honest, most of the states won by Democrats usually have them winning so big those 80,000 votes - even if they were ALL fraudulent - don't make a hill of beans difference. And it's the states we need to be concerned with here, not the overall popular vote.

In some close swing states, this will be meaningful. I think Ohio and Florida could prove important - states where 800,000 fraudulent votes may prove to be the differential. Perhaps even Wisconsin. But maybe not.

The Republicans do their fair share, less organized as you say though it's possible the current drive to make voting difficult for naturalized citizens is about as organized as you can get (completely legitimate in my mind - I have no problem with providing ID when I vote, in fact I'd say it's a necessity....right now all I do is sign. And I deliberately change my signature to see what happens. Nothing.).

So, my point is that while the Democrats might 'steal' the election, the Republicans might, too. Rove was a master at managing state agendas to put items on the ballot which drive hardcore voters that tend to swing Republican.

I disagree that it's a widespread machine engaging in massive fraud, though. I believe each region has versions of fraud taking place which have simply become accepted as 'the way things are done'.

"Hey, toss in 50 more votes because my family members can't make it and they all support Obama."
"OK, that makes sense just because it's raining doesn't mean we disenfranchise them."

Technically, there are people who would read that conversation and say "that's not fraud". It's pure rationalization, but there are people who truly believe it's justifiable to do something like this.

I agree. But again, I didn't say there was NO vote fraud. My point is relatively simple. There probably isn't widespread voter fraud of a particular nature which can be easily rooted out. Let's analyze this simply:

To start, the politicians don't want whatever is happening rooted out. Let's just get that out of the way. Having some degree of fraud leads them to believe they have 'an advantage'. It's like trying to rig the market. You gain an advantage for a short period of time until the market adjusts, then you lose that advantage. It's no surprise politicians aren't interested in rooting it out - they haven't rooted out the economic fraud!

Secondly, I point out that fraud probably is taking place in a regional or local fashion. But having the dead vote in Chicago isn't the same as disenfranchising voters in Florida. It's not like there's this huge machine saying "hey, let's go fix the vote". I believe this is a purely regional initiative, and how it occurs differs in both format and scale. It also differs by party, too.

Finally, I believe that both parties do it. Therefore, there's a point at which their fraud offsets each other. I suppose the Democrats engage some unique methods which can, occasionally, lead to victories in close elections. But that would make Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 seem like they are outliers (if you suppose Dems are 'better at it').

The Rove tactic isn't 'fraud' at all (though I think Democrats would take issue with it).

My point has been that the nature of fraud isn't always what you think it is. Long ago, I was taught that to control an outcome, then you have to control the agenda. Rove always went out of his way to control the agenda.

Technically, this isn't fraud - you're right.

My point in mentioning it is there are many ways to 'steal' an election.

I'm not trying to 'do' anything.

I'm merely saying there's more than one way to achieve the result you desire.
Democrats and Republicans alike utilize certain types of fraud - real fraud. As GWTW suggests, the Dems may be more organized with theirs.

However, the Republicans utilize tactics which are legal but not entirely tasteful to provide offsetting factors. Control the agenda, require proof of status, etc.

Just because something's legal doesn't mean it is 'right'. Democracy isn't (or shouldn't be) about winning at any cost. That's the mindset of a lawyer. Of course, most politicians are lawyers.

Thanks for supporting my point.
I think if you reread what I wrote in the post, and the follow up comments, you'll see it coincides with what you wrote.

Fraud isn't institutionalized on a widespread basis, it's localized.
Finding fraud means looking in different places than are typically reviewed - and politicians won't do it because it impacts their ability to use it later.

Simple.