Sunday, August 29, 2004

Double voting

Washington Times is worried about double voting, citing a New York Daily News investigation showing some 46,000 New Yorkers are registered both in Florida and in New York. Surprise. Some 68% are Democrats, 12% are Republican, and 16% are Independent.
Florida Republicans should be prepared for the possibility of Democratic double-voting. They also need to be prepared for the likelihood that blowing the whistle on such illegal activity will subject them to false charges that the GOP is trying to steal the election.

It seems to me there are even greater problems in double voting in states within easy commuting distance to New York where many have second or summer homes. Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, etc. An even bigger problem is the double voting on campus where a large number of students vote by absentee vote in their home state as well as where they reside. This was a big issue in Colorado several years ago.

Since the Motor Voter Act many voters have been automatically registered and made convenient use of it. Since it is also a Federal law, there is no reason why the Feds can't enforce a one person, one vote. States are not going to cooperate, but hefty fines with restrictions of having college students ONLY vote absentee in their home states would help. And there is no reason why all elections can't ask for thumb prints at the precincts where they sign in to vote. What have they got to hide? They already sign their names without being asked for identification. A thumb print would help document voting fraud. Those itinerant voters in St. Louis who travel from precinct to precint on election day could finally be caught.

A few years ago I posted a story to from Florida where an Orange County judge appointed by Clinton laughed about the family tradition of voting 4-5 times each. His aunt, uncle, mother and father all voted multiple times. In St. Louis.


Jib said...

Ugh. I'm loath to say this, because I really hate the idea, but perhaps it is time for the national ID card. It would seem a natural fit that there be one vote for one social security number, but seing that we're unable to prevent social security number fraud, we'd just end up with hundreds of thousands of illegal votes anyway. If they have an ID card that must be swiped to vote in person or when requesting an absentee ballot, we can better ensure an honest vote.

My biggest fear with a national ID card is that if we can't get social security numbers right, whose to say we can get a national ID card right. Well, that solves it, I hate the national ID card idea again. Scrap what I said before.

I like the thumb print idea, but election officials are only going to compare thumbprints in the most obvious of cases because it does require a little bit of human confirmation.

Mediaskeptic said...

Yes, the national ID bothers me, too. I think the ballot box should be anonymous. It takes little imagination after the Clintonistas to envision someone connecting votes to individuals and punishing them for their views. Call it a Sydney Blumenthal vision.

The thumb print I thought less restrictive. It would effectively document fraud. The problem now is that you can't document it. The signatures can be easily denied, no proof of identity is asked, and election workers can hardly identify people they see for 50 seconds as they sign in. But a thumb print. That's irrefutable evidence.

The Motor Voter Act was a two-stage intention. First, everyone is registered. Hard to prosecute a phony registration when it is automatic, not even requiring a signature. But the second part was going to be to vote "at work" or "any poll booth." This was ostensibly so more people would vote. It really meant that the fraud-controlled precinct would receive hundreds, if not thousands, of illegal votes with no one the wiser. No addresses for anyone visiting the booth to question. The ballot box would no longer be neighborhood but the hoodlum. Just another chance to cheat the system.