How Big Is Voter Fraud?
This was first published in 2012.
As some of you may already know, recently there have been attempts by some states to remove people from the voter rolls. Further, there have also been modifications in some states as to how registered voters are actually permitted to vote, with some sort of photo identification being required by some, before a person can actually cast a ballot.*
I've tried to research these issues by checking what I consider to be non-partisan or objective sources, but these seem to be view and far between, and I really deemed nothing satisfactory. Most stories seem to come from either very conservative individuals or groups, or from very liberal individuals or groups. That doesn't mean the articles are incorrect, but I really haven't seen what I consider an in depth article dealing with the subject and presenting both sides of the arguments. To be quite honest, there are probably more than two sides to some of these arguments, but for the sake of simplicity, I'll use two basic points of view.
The basic argument by Republicans is that there is a major problem with voter fraud in America. To halt "non-citizens" from voting, they want proof that we are citizens. Republicans in Florida for instance, want some list of non citizens from the Department of Homeland Security. Further, if I understand this correctly, Republicans also seem to feel that non-registered people are voting in place of people legally registered, but who may be too ill to vote or may even be deceased, or that some people are voting more than once in any given election. In Ohio, there have also been attempts to curtail the "absentee voting" period, where people can vote by mail, or even in person at county election bureaus, in advance of the election.
Democrats argue that "voter fraud," in general, is an issue created by Republicans when the problem is very small and that is it an issue in search of a problem. They feel Republicans are overreacting. Further, Democrats believe Republicans are trying to suppress voter turnout among poorer, and often minority, voters, who tend to be Democrats.
Just a little history here: the 1960 election was extremely close between Republican Richard Nixon and Democrat John Kennedy. In the end, Kennedy won the national popular vote by just over 100,000 votes out of about 70 million votes cast.** Actually these numbers are irrelevant, "in a sense," because American presidents are not elected by the overall popular vote, but by electoral votes, which are votes cast by electors from each state,*** thus making presidential elections a state by state campaign, rather than a true national campaign. Kennedy won the electoral vote with 303 votes (the winner needed a minimum of 269 at that time).
Not only was the national popular vote extremely close, but in several of the truly important state contests the vote was razor thin for one candidate or the other. In Hawaii, for example, Nixon won the state during the initial vote count, only to lose it to Kennedy by about 100 votes in a recount.**** Similarly, Kennedy was thought to have prevailed in California, a state with lots of electoral votes, but when absentee ballots were counted after election night, Nixon eked out a win. Illinois was carried by Kennedy in a highly controversial election. Kennedy led by less than 10,000 votes out of more than four and one half million votes cast in the state. Nixon carried much of the state, but in solidly Democratic Chicago, known for "vote early and often," Kennedy piled up a heavy total to overcome Nixon's strength in other parts of the state. Voter fraud was suspected, but the issue was eventually dropped by Republicans, when charges of Republican fraud were leveled by Democrats in some Republican counties. Fairly or unfairly, a consensus was eventually reached that any fraud or errors had benefited both sides, but had cancelled out enough of a gain for Nixon for Kennedy to carry the state. There were other contested states, but you get the idea. Republicans, including my father, carried a grudge against the 1960 election for many years into the future, but the thing was, in those times, the selection of Nixon or Kennedy was not seen by many folks as all that different, except for religious bigots who felt that if Kennedy were elected he would rule the country on the orders of the Pope or that everyone would be forced to attend morning Mass before heading to work. To be fair, Catholics rallied to Kennedy, and he undoubtedly benefited from that religious tilt. The positions of the two candidates were not all that strikingly different, and the idea that the republic was somehow in danger if one or the other were elected didn't seem to enter the minds of most Americans. This stands in stark contrast to more recent elections, where both sides feel absolutely threatened by the other.***** This just shows how polarized the country is.
* To my knowledge, these are all states with Republican governors or Republican legislatures, or both.
** Kennedy received just under 50% of the popular vote, but there were other candidates from various little known parties on the ballot which accounted for the balance of votes.
*** Each state has a number of electors determined by the number of its congressional representatives, plus its two U.S. senators. So, if your state has eight members of the U.S. House of Representatives, your state then has ten electors for the presidential election. Electors are chosen by varying state laws, but "typically," the state political parties each choose a slate of electors. Technically, when you vote for president, you are voting for these electors, and not directly for a particular candidate. If "Candidate X" receives more votes in your state than "Candidate Y," it is "assumed" that the electors for X's party will vote for their nominee, but there have been occasional exceptions, and some electors have occasionally declared themselves to be "uncommitted." The "Electoral College," as it is known, was set up by the Founding Fathers as a compromise between factions which wanted the president to be decided by popular vote, and those who wanted the president decided by Congress.
**** Understand, even if Nixon had retained Hawaii, it would not have changed the overall election result.
***** Some Democrats (and probably some independents and even some Republicans) seem to feel that the 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore was "stolen" for Bush, and that the decision led to the eventual invasion of Iraq, a war that ended up tearing at the fabric of our society, and that lax regulation of the financial system by the Bush administration led to the economic meltdown and the still lingering problems with the economy. The idea is, "elections (can) have serious consequences."
WORD HISTORY:
Pull-Old English (Anglo-Saxon) had "pullian," which meant "to pluck, to pull." This later became "pullen," before the modern version. Low German, a close relative of English, has "pulen," which means "to pluck, to pull, to tear off," but it originally meant "to tear off the husk or shell." The language of the ancestral homeland of English in northern Germany is still Saxon,^ now commonly called Low German Saxon, but where they got the word that became English "pull" and Low German "pulen" is unknown. Dutch, another close English relative, has the noun "peul," which means "husk, pod," and my guess would be that the original meaning of Low German "pulen;" that is, "to tear off a husk or shell," transferred to the object of that action as a noun, "pod, husk."
^ Standard German is taught in school, but Low German is the indigenous language of northern Germany, although there are many variations (dialects).
As some of you may already know, recently there have been attempts by some states to remove people from the voter rolls. Further, there have also been modifications in some states as to how registered voters are actually permitted to vote, with some sort of photo identification being required by some, before a person can actually cast a ballot.*
I've tried to research these issues by checking what I consider to be non-partisan or objective sources, but these seem to be view and far between, and I really deemed nothing satisfactory. Most stories seem to come from either very conservative individuals or groups, or from very liberal individuals or groups. That doesn't mean the articles are incorrect, but I really haven't seen what I consider an in depth article dealing with the subject and presenting both sides of the arguments. To be quite honest, there are probably more than two sides to some of these arguments, but for the sake of simplicity, I'll use two basic points of view.
The basic argument by Republicans is that there is a major problem with voter fraud in America. To halt "non-citizens" from voting, they want proof that we are citizens. Republicans in Florida for instance, want some list of non citizens from the Department of Homeland Security. Further, if I understand this correctly, Republicans also seem to feel that non-registered people are voting in place of people legally registered, but who may be too ill to vote or may even be deceased, or that some people are voting more than once in any given election. In Ohio, there have also been attempts to curtail the "absentee voting" period, where people can vote by mail, or even in person at county election bureaus, in advance of the election.
Democrats argue that "voter fraud," in general, is an issue created by Republicans when the problem is very small and that is it an issue in search of a problem. They feel Republicans are overreacting. Further, Democrats believe Republicans are trying to suppress voter turnout among poorer, and often minority, voters, who tend to be Democrats.
Just a little history here: the 1960 election was extremely close between Republican Richard Nixon and Democrat John Kennedy. In the end, Kennedy won the national popular vote by just over 100,000 votes out of about 70 million votes cast.** Actually these numbers are irrelevant, "in a sense," because American presidents are not elected by the overall popular vote, but by electoral votes, which are votes cast by electors from each state,*** thus making presidential elections a state by state campaign, rather than a true national campaign. Kennedy won the electoral vote with 303 votes (the winner needed a minimum of 269 at that time).
Not only was the national popular vote extremely close, but in several of the truly important state contests the vote was razor thin for one candidate or the other. In Hawaii, for example, Nixon won the state during the initial vote count, only to lose it to Kennedy by about 100 votes in a recount.**** Similarly, Kennedy was thought to have prevailed in California, a state with lots of electoral votes, but when absentee ballots were counted after election night, Nixon eked out a win. Illinois was carried by Kennedy in a highly controversial election. Kennedy led by less than 10,000 votes out of more than four and one half million votes cast in the state. Nixon carried much of the state, but in solidly Democratic Chicago, known for "vote early and often," Kennedy piled up a heavy total to overcome Nixon's strength in other parts of the state. Voter fraud was suspected, but the issue was eventually dropped by Republicans, when charges of Republican fraud were leveled by Democrats in some Republican counties. Fairly or unfairly, a consensus was eventually reached that any fraud or errors had benefited both sides, but had cancelled out enough of a gain for Nixon for Kennedy to carry the state. There were other contested states, but you get the idea. Republicans, including my father, carried a grudge against the 1960 election for many years into the future, but the thing was, in those times, the selection of Nixon or Kennedy was not seen by many folks as all that different, except for religious bigots who felt that if Kennedy were elected he would rule the country on the orders of the Pope or that everyone would be forced to attend morning Mass before heading to work. To be fair, Catholics rallied to Kennedy, and he undoubtedly benefited from that religious tilt. The positions of the two candidates were not all that strikingly different, and the idea that the republic was somehow in danger if one or the other were elected didn't seem to enter the minds of most Americans. This stands in stark contrast to more recent elections, where both sides feel absolutely threatened by the other.***** This just shows how polarized the country is.
* To my knowledge, these are all states with Republican governors or Republican legislatures, or both.
** Kennedy received just under 50% of the popular vote, but there were other candidates from various little known parties on the ballot which accounted for the balance of votes.
*** Each state has a number of electors determined by the number of its congressional representatives, plus its two U.S. senators. So, if your state has eight members of the U.S. House of Representatives, your state then has ten electors for the presidential election. Electors are chosen by varying state laws, but "typically," the state political parties each choose a slate of electors. Technically, when you vote for president, you are voting for these electors, and not directly for a particular candidate. If "Candidate X" receives more votes in your state than "Candidate Y," it is "assumed" that the electors for X's party will vote for their nominee, but there have been occasional exceptions, and some electors have occasionally declared themselves to be "uncommitted." The "Electoral College," as it is known, was set up by the Founding Fathers as a compromise between factions which wanted the president to be decided by popular vote, and those who wanted the president decided by Congress.
**** Understand, even if Nixon had retained Hawaii, it would not have changed the overall election result.
***** Some Democrats (and probably some independents and even some Republicans) seem to feel that the 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore was "stolen" for Bush, and that the decision led to the eventual invasion of Iraq, a war that ended up tearing at the fabric of our society, and that lax regulation of the financial system by the Bush administration led to the economic meltdown and the still lingering problems with the economy. The idea is, "elections (can) have serious consequences."
WORD HISTORY:
Pull-Old English (Anglo-Saxon) had "pullian," which meant "to pluck, to pull." This later became "pullen," before the modern version. Low German, a close relative of English, has "pulen," which means "to pluck, to pull, to tear off," but it originally meant "to tear off the husk or shell." The language of the ancestral homeland of English in northern Germany is still Saxon,^ now commonly called Low German Saxon, but where they got the word that became English "pull" and Low German "pulen" is unknown. Dutch, another close English relative, has the noun "peul," which means "husk, pod," and my guess would be that the original meaning of Low German "pulen;" that is, "to tear off a husk or shell," transferred to the object of that action as a noun, "pod, husk."
^ Standard German is taught in school, but Low German is the indigenous language of northern Germany, although there are many variations (dialects).
Labels: Election of 1960. Electoral College, English, etymology, John F. Kennedy, Low German, Richard Nixon, voter fraud, voter registration
posted by Randy at 6:12 PM
6 Comments:
I learned about the Electoral College. The Nixon-Kennedy election was a little too far back for me to remember, but I certainly have heard about it. I think UR probably right that "the republic was not in danger" with the election of either man, although Nixon got into trouble later. There is this nasty political divide today, and it's been around since Clinton. Anything to bring the other person down, don't worry about what's good for the country, just beat mr. or Ms X.
re: "a consensus was eventually reached that any fraud or errors had benefited both sides"
What's your source for that? Even though Illinois wouldn't have given Nixon the victory, that state and Texas together would have. I'm embarrassed to admit it but there was definitely voter fraud in Texas of at least several thousand votes. For example, in one county, there were more votes for Kennedy than registered voters. While Kennedy or Nixon might not have made a difference, I think the Kennedy assasination and bringing LBJ into office was a sea change. I seriously doubt the Civil Rights Act, Medicare and Medicaid would have been enacted by 1965. Then there's Vietnam ... just look at the number of soldiers killed by the year and you'll get the feeling it was LBJ's war. The first year of Johnson's Presidency in 1964 saw 206 soldiers die and his last year in 1968 had 16,589 U.S. troops being killed. The number of troops killed in Vietnam rapidly decreased once Nixon took office and deaths numbered 640 by his 4th year in office.
Gene, I've read several articles and books on the overall subject, so I just don't recall all the sources, but an October 2000 article by Daniel Greenberg may have been one of the main ones. In an effort to keep things short, I didn't elaborate in my article about everything in Illinois, but the Republicans controlled the state election board and they dismissed Republican claims for lack of direct evidence. And one article (or book?) was more direct in indicating that Democrats withheld challenges in some Republican counties as leverage for the GOP not to go too far in Illinois, or there would likely be some Republican votes lost too. You make some good points about Vietnam, but some Kennedy supporters have argued that if JFK had lived he was going to withdraw. To me there's really no direct evidence of such. With Nixon having made a reputation for being so anti-communist, I don't know what he'd have done in Vietnam, if he'd won in 1960, although he may not have felt the need to prove himself there. Did Johnson feel the need to prove that Democrats were tough on communism too, thus the escalation? The "domino theory" was quite popular in those days.
Just wanted to add that when I wrote "sea change," I was principally thinking of all the landmark legislation and not Vietnam. I am of the opinion that
both Nixon and Kennedy would have escalated the War and had large numbers of troops fighting. However, unlike Johnson who wanted to continue heavy fighting even at the end of 1968, I believe that Nixon or Kennedy would have either started descalating the U.S. presence or sent even more troops, invaded North of the DMZ and taken Hanoi even if it was considered "politically unacceptable."
This isn't the right place for it but elsewhere in your blog I believe there's a statement that the U.S. paid down on the national debt during the years when we had a surplus. Maybe you already know all this and just worded it that way but I'm very, very worried about the national debt at this time so I just wanted to mention that even in the surplus years, the national debt continuing rising principally because of interest on the total debt. I believe the total debt rose about $1.75 trillion during Clinton's eight years but don't hold me to that number. Although that's not good, the U.S. could continue that level of yearly deficits and total debt indefinitely unless there was a severe, prolonged depression. It's the spending escalation since 2007 and the subsequent deficits that have likely permanently damaged our economic machine.
Gene,
I should have also noted, while proof may be lacking, there is, IMO, certainly a strong possibility Nixon did defeat Kennedy in 1960. No doubt too, this contributed to Nixon's obsession with what the other side was up to and led to his ultimate downfall. But then again, we're not talking about a loss for the position of dogcatcher. On the debt, yep, we've got problems, and as I've written here, neither side will be happy if they really want to solve,or at least start to solve, the problem. I have no idea what your politics are, or maybe more so, your economic beliefs, but this "give tax cuts to rich people" philosophy has got to go. In decades past, the wealthy paid higher taxes and the country didn't dry up and blow away; in fact, it was stronger, IMO. Now, will that solve things? Nope, as there are other problems too, far beyond revenues. I did an article about deficit spending. I don't know if you've seen it: (you may have to copy and paste this) http://pontificating-randy.blogspot.com/2011/02/gop-keynesians-in-disguise.html
Post a Comment
<< Home