Voting Dogs and Democratic Fairy Dust

by Will Wilkinson on October 26, 2004

A thought: Could it be that the sort of person likely to be “intimidated” out of voting isn’t in general the sort of person who you want to be voting?

A lot of the coverage, both formal and informal, of the forthcoming apocalypse in Ohio strikes me as implicitly accepting a really quite stupid bit of democratic romanticism: that it is better that 100 illegitimate votes be counted than to let one legitimate vote go uncounted.

The implicit picture is that voting is a sort of magical expression of citizenship that mystically confers “legitimacy” upon democratically decided results. If some citizens vote, but have their votes tossed out, or if some citizens decide it is too much hassle to get to the polls, then each lost vote is a drop drained from the bucket of legitimacy.

This is an utterly bizzare way of looking at democratic legitimacy, but seems to be part of the civics course democracy catechism, about which journalists especially pretend to be devout. This is why we hear cries of lament if there is low voter turnout. How can democracy be the people’s authentic voice if the people refuse to speak! How can we frolic in the sparkling waters of democracy if the bucket of legitimacy is but half full?

The strange thing is that the press seems to treat illegitimate votes as a kind of noise, a kind of tolerable if unfortunate democratic static, while intimidated no-shows are a travesty against all that is holy. Yet, and this should be obvious, in terms of the aggregative democratic procedure, an unnoticed illegal vote for one guy (in a two horse race) is EXACTLY EQUIVALENT to scaring off a voter for the other guy.

If somebody’s dog manages to vote for John Kerry, then, in effect, Velma Thompson (or whomever) failed to vote for that nice man, George W. Bush, even though she tried. Whiskers cancels out Velma. Here’s another way to make the same point. Each Bush vote is paired with a Kerry vote and they’re both thrown away. The winner is the one who has votes left on the table after all the other guy’s votes have been chucked. Pairing legitimate voters with voting felons, dogs, corpses, and Frenchmen has precisely the same effect on the outcome as shooting legitimate voters before they can get in the door of the high school gym.

Republican vigilance about keeping illegal voters from voting is democratically equivalent to Democratic vigilance against Republican attempts to suppress the legal vote. Republican vigilance has the semi-intended side-effect of suppressing likely Democratic votes. And huge Democratic registration and GOTV drives have the semi-intended side-effect of canceling out a large number of Republican votes with illegal ballots. I bet I can tell from your party affiliation which you think is worse.

The press, as far as I can tell, seems to think Republican vigilance is worse. If one has the popular magical view of democratic legitimacy, Velma’s participation itself sprinkles a bit of fairy dust of legitimacy on the entire proceedings. Voting dogs, lacking the relevant legal status, have no fairy dust to contribute, but their votes don’t take any fairy dust away. Velma expressed herself, that’s what matters, and you can’t take that away! Because we want the MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF DEMOCRATIC FAIRY DUST, we shouldn’t complain if a huge turnout, and a huge amount of fairy dust, also entails a sizable turnout of the dead, canine, and alien. And, anyway, why shouldn’t their votes count?

  • huge Democratic registration and GOTV drives have the semi-intended side-effect of canceling out a large number of Republican votes with illegal ballots
  • rosignol
    Provisional ballots are for registered voters who end up at the wrong precinct. They get to vote -- provisionally -- and those ballots are closely checked against the voter registration rolls.


    They're supposed to be, yeah. But that's not what has been happening in King County, Washington.


    Republicans are against provisional balloting because they allow more registered voters to vote. Period.


    Wrong. Republicans are against allowing people who do not have the right to vote cast a ballot. Provisional ballots are one of the many ways that happens.



    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/241248_election19.asp

    [...]

    Irons and the GOP have hammered Sims over the elections department's meltdown in the 2004 general election. The mistakes included overlooking more than 100 absentee ballots until it was too late to count them, tabulating hundreds of provisional ballots without the required verification of voter eligibility beforehand, failing to reconcile accounts of voters and ballots and losing track of voter signatures used to verify absentee votes. Hundreds of felons voted illegally, and votes were cast in the names of dead people.
  • kate
    Voter registration cards could have a picture just like IDs do. the cost is not great. Certainly worth it to help clean up elections. Precinct changes could be similar to year changes for autos- stickers.
  • Robert Schwartz
    Bring back the 40 shilling freehold, literacy tests, one year residency requirements and a minimum age of 21. Abolish no excuse absentee ballots, and voting before election day. All absentee balots must be filled out and signed without the presence of a party worker.
  • Todd
    Why is it that these registered voters find themselve in the wrong precinct? Do they do this on a regular basis? It seems to me that it is the resposibility of the voter to inquire which precinct they have go to in order to vote. Thus we would not have any reason to have a provisional vote. Not to be rude to anyone, but I believe that if a registered vote repeatedly finds themselves in the wrong precinct, there might be a reasonable reason for this, they can not read or they have a comprehension problem. Come on America, wake up and read your local newspaper!
  • Spiney Widgmo
    Disenfranchising a voter by denying then the chance to vote is worse because the voter knows he won't allowed to vote therefore he feels bad.

    If Velma Thompson has her vote cancelled by a hamster voting, she doesn't know about it therefore she doesn't feel bad.

    Since feeling are the most important thing in the world, better a thousand hamsters vote than one voter be denied the chance to cast a ballot.
  • I want to emphasize to non-readers of my blog that I will be voting for the libertarian candidate, and that I hope Kerry wins the election. It is possible to make an observation or argument that is not motivated by one's immediate political hopes. Just sayin'
  • Anonymous
    Perhaps when Republicans can show millions of fraudulent votes to pair off with the millions of votes denied, then i could take this "moral equivalence" seriously. The law allows every citizen to register where they live, even students, Mexicans and blacks. And the law requires that they be allowed to vote, and that their vote be counted. Rich people have other ways of influencing policy besides the ballot, such as campaign donations, lobbying, bribery, etc. But poor people have one shot: Election Day. Anyone who knows any history knows whose votes get counted. Please stop pretending to be victims and just admit what you are doing: denying the ballot to citizens because you don't like who they'll vote for.
  • bitter mastermind
    Provisional voting. You can vote without registering first, and I think with no ID check.

    Oh jeez...

    Provisional ballots are for registered voters who end up at the wrong precinct. They get to vote -- provisionally -- and those ballots are closely checked against the voter registration rolls.

    Republicans are against provisional balloting because they allow more registered voters to vote. Period.

    This isnt's not some grand ideological stance on their part -- if more potential voters were Republican, I assure you that they'd be screaming from every rooftop for required voting, extended voting, weekend voting....

    Here's the big difference: if more potential voters were Republican, I'd STILL be trying to get every potential voter to vote. I'd rather not see Republicans elected, but for me the principle of democracy is genuinely more important.
  • James
    If I register a million dogs to vote, how much damage have I done to the system (besides the cost of registration)?

    None. There's no harm unless I actually cast votes.

    Now let's suppose I actually want to cast as many fraudulent votes as possible. A few assumptions:
    1. It takes, say, ten minutes from entering a polling station, completing the voting process, driving to another polling station, and entering that station.
    2. I don't want to risk showing up at the same polling station more than 4 times total, so I need to map out 18 different polling stations and make sure I have 4 names assigned at each.

    With these assumptions I can vote 6 times an hour, and given a 12 hour voting window (and no breaks for food or restroom) I can cast 72 bad votes.

    To get a thousand bad votes, I need to recruit more than 10 other people to this.

    Now consider what it takes to disenfranchise. Drop a stack of voter registrations in a garbage can. Generate a list of people from a database with a few percent error.

    The point: disenfranchisement is way easier, and thus more likely, and thus the bigger danger.
  • o
    thanks for the links, folks, I look forward to learning more. And as a resident of Chicago, I am certainly aware that Democrats are capable of committing vote fraud!
  • Robin Munn
    Jim B,

    "... not just refusing to accept the registrations of Democrats because that's not illegal or fraudulent ..."

    Really? I don't know election law, but I would have guessed that if you're set up to accept voter registrations, you have to accept all valid registrations (i.e., people who are really U.S. citizens, mentally competent, etc.) But you're saying that people accepting voter registrations are legally allowed to show favoritism. Do you know where I can find the relevant law to read it for myself?

    As for the whole "I don't want those people to vote who wouldn't recognize the truth if it hit them in the face with a 2x4" type quotes: Gee, way to be nice and polite! :-) But seriously, the people *I* would prefer not to vote are the people who don't decide who to vote for until they're standing in the booth looking at the ballot. If they haven't made up their minds before arriving at the polling place, then effectively they're tossing a coin. I'd rather have the direction of the country decided by people who know what they want, thanks. And yes, some of them may not agree with me, and will cast their vote for the opposite person than I will. But you know what? That's how democracy is *supposed* to work. They have their reasons for thinking that candidate A is better, just like I have my reasons for thinking that candidate B is better. But those people who can't decide between A and B, or who think "What's the difference anyway?" -- them I'd rather see sit out the election than cast what's effectively a random vote.

    And I do practice what I preach: I've been living in Illinois until this year, but now I'm in North Carolina. (I just got here in August). Since I haven't had time to learn about the local politicians yet, this election I'm only voting for the national positions: President, Senate, House. State Senate, state governor, judges, sheriff -- I'm casting a blank ballot for all those races. Next election I'll be more knowledgeable on local issues, and I'll be able to vote for them with a clear conscience. But until I know enough to choose, I'll leave the choice to those people who do know what's going on.
  • Kevin
  • cobataiwan
    Provisional voting. You can vote without registering first, and I think with no ID check.

    This means you can go to vote in several precincts.

    Dems like provisional voting, GOP wants to can it. I wonder why?
  • Greg D
    Republican vigilance has the semi-intended side-effect of suppressing likely Democratic votes.

    How?

    Are you talking about honest Democrat votes (i.e. votes from legally registered, mentally competent voters)? Or are you assuming that it's the Democrats who commit most of the vote fraud in the US, so cleaning up election hurts them more?
  • Stuart Buck
    O:

    For dozens of stories about Democratic-linked voter fraud, see here.

    Or see the several stories that I discuss here and here.
  • bitter mastermind
    I see the walking around money, the dead people voting, etc.

    Hey man, it's cool. We all see money and the dead walking around. [backing away slowly...]

    To take your mind off it, here's some of those "link" things you may have heard about:

    <ul>
    <li>Local party officials said there is no way the GOP would instruct the company to trash democratic registrations. However, similar problems have been alleged elsewhere. In Washoe County, the registrar says he too has turned over information to the FBI about Republican backed registration efforts. In Oregon, the same company that was operating here has been criticized for its tactics in signing up voters. There, it used the name America Votes, which is actually the name of a Democratic organization.

    </li><li>Another eyewitness has come forward with allegations of improprieties in voter registration. This witness says she worked directly for the Republican party.

    </li><li>she did acknowledge that the party's poll workers will be instructed to challenge voters
    </li><li>State Board of Elections said they have received complaints about residents getting phone calls telling them they aren't registered to vote
    </li><li>"suppress the Detroit vote"

    </li><li>"committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."

    </li><li>"It's no secret that the name of the game for Republicans is to restrain that turnout as much as possible. Black votes are Democratic votes, and there are a lot of them in Florida."

    </li><li>of the 179,855 ballots invalidated by Florida officials, 53 percent were cast by black voters.

    </li></ul>
  • 1) To my knowledge there has been exactly one person who has alleged that Republicans tore up registrations, and that person was working with the DNC and reporting back to them every day they worked there....hardly an objective or credible source...

    2) Just because a Republican doesn't allow a Kerry supporter to fill out a form isn't either illegal or suppressing the vote. There is nothing that says I have to allow the registration of a Kerry (or Bush) supporter if I choose not to. The law is that if I allow someone to fill it out, then I have to deliver to the election office. The whole point of partisan vote drives is to get voters for your guy. That's why Democrats stump for new voters in Democratic areas and Republicans do the opposite. Before you start claiming voter suppression, understand the law...

    3) There have been a lot of allegations about voter "suppression" by Republicans but yet not one case has been proven. Just because I claim that someone committed a crime doesn't make them guilty....especially if there's a vested interest in me claiming that a crime was committed. If I claim that Democrats are murdering babies, does that make them guilty of murdering babies until they prove they're innocent of it? Nope, the burden's on me to prove a) that a baby was murdered, and b) the Republicans were the ones who did it...According to Democratic logic, as long as I claim it then it's true...C'mon, guys...get real....

    (And before you start talking about roadblocks and ballot spoilage, those stories have been proven false. Ballot spoilage amongst minorities is no higher than for the overall population and there has not been a single showing that roadblocks were actually in place.)

    4) On the other hand, there are actual convictions of Democrats buying votes with cigarettes in 2000, multiple criminal investigations in several states of ACORN, etc.

    I don't agree with any attempt to suppress the vote because a) it's wrong, and b) it's stupid because any actually proven case would only lend credence to what has been a decades long case of Democrats "crying wolf" which many minorities (and whites) are beginning to see through.

    I live in a "Blue State" and I see the walking around money, the dead people voting, etc. I know the fraud is taking place. If you can't show me actual proof - not just a claim, but proof - of Republican fraud (and I mean real fraud, not just refusing to accept the registrations of Democrats because that's not illegal or fraudulent) then I have no reason to take you seriously....it's the excuse Democrats use to carry out their fraud, but it's not the truth...
  • Anonymous
    Which is worse depends largely on what you mean by intimidation. To cite an extreme example, what used to happen in the south to blacks (carried out by Democrats, not incidently), before the civil rights movement, was real intimidation. When you have to fear for your physical safety if you dare to vote, you are indeed intimidated.

    On the other hand, if you are talking about the ridiculous charges leveled against Republicans in the 2000 election, that's not intimidation, that's just making a feeble atempt to enforce the rules.
  • o
    links, gentlemen, please! Don't assume that I am operating from a partisan standpoint; I am able and willing to be convinced of any claim for which there is credible evidence.
  • bitter mastermind
    1) A man working for the NRA stood guard in front of the voter registration cards in the post office

    2) In Wisconsin, there are fewer dogs with voter registrations than there are cows who are major Bush contributors.

    3) In Florida 2000, the only white people on the record complaining were, in fact, Chechen rebels who snuck across the border.

    4) There have been at least as many Republicans registering imaginary Frenchmen as Democrats (e.g. some guy named Bob I heard talking behind the 7-11 the other night).

    Seriously. I heard it on the internets.
  • Kevin
    O,
    What planet are you living on? Maybe you need to move on from moveon.org and get some real news. There is rampant voter fraud going on by dem workers in Wisconsin, Tennesee, Ohio, Florida..., do a simple google search. They are registering people that don't exist.
  • akmdave
    O:

    1) A woman working for the NAACP gave crack in return for phony registrations.

    2) In 4 Ohio counties there are more registered voters than there are adult citizens.

    3) In Florida in 2000, the only black people on the record with complaints of voter intimidation were Haitians who were pressured to vote for Dems in Miami. I am aware of none in this election. If you have a specific claim to the contrary, please post it.

    4) There have been at least as many stories about Democratic "efforts to tear up voter registration cards." (e.g., ACORN in Florida and several other states.)
  • o
    And another thing!
    As far as I can see you are burning a straw man here, namely what you call a
    "really quite stupid bit of democratic romanticism: that it is better that 100 illegitimate votes be counted than to let one legitimate vote go uncounted."
    I've never heard this espoused by anyone, but again, maybe I haven't gotten around as much as you have. But you are careful to qualify this at least twice as "implicit." If it is so implicit that no one has ever actually stated or defended it, maybe a better description would be "non-existent."
  • o
    "Republican vigilance about keeping illegal voters from voting is democratically equivalent to Democratic vigilance against Republican attempts to suppress the legal vote. Republican vigilance has the semi-intended side-effect of suppressing likely Democratic votes. And huge Democratic registration and GOTV drives have the semi-intended side-effect of canceling out a large number of Republican votes with illegal ballots. I bet I can tell from your party affiliation which you think is worse."

    I think voter intimidation/suppression and illegal ballots are equally bad, but then I am not affiliated with any political party.

    But from what I know, which is just what I read on the Internet, I don't see an exact equivalence between Rep. and Dem. practices here.

    Of course efforts to prevent illegal voting are legitimate, but what I hear is stories about Republican efforts to tear up voter registration cards, lying to discourage people from registering, refusal to register people who say they intend to vote for Kerry, intimidation of black people, etc. Suppressing Dem. votes isn't a "semi-intended side effect" of these practices, it's the whole point of them.

    On the other side I hear about big drives by MoveOn or whoever to register more voters and encourage, especially, young people to vote. I don't see this as being a counterpart, in intention or effect, to the Rep. efforts I just described. And I haven't even seen accusations that registration drives are at least partly intended to create some illegal Dem. votes, but of course I could have missed it. Can you point me to reporting of such accusations?

    In (not so) short, as far as I have seen the facts on the ground do not support the story of equivalence that I see you painting above.
  • mroberts
    RE:A thought: Could it be that the sort of person likely to be "intimidated" out of voting isn't in general the sort of person who you want to be voting?
    Personally, I don't want those people to vote who wouldn't recognize the truth if it hit them in the face with a 2x4. That would include the President, the Vice-President, and many in their administration. They've been getting hit by the truth at a very consistent and frequent rate lately... but reality appears to have very little influence upon them.
  • Anonymous
    It's a given that most people (particularly the people supporting Bush according to the PIPA study) really are too stupid to be voting. It would be wonderful if Americans paid as much attention to the details of how they are governed as they do to how "their contestant" is doing on Survivor. But they don't, they never have, and they never will.

    Americans get the government they deserve.
  • I'm sorry. That should be Mr. Whiskers.
  • Chuck
    What kind of idiot names his dog "whiskers"?
blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: