Cascade Policy Institute Tries the "Voter Fraud" Angle
From John McCain, who declared that ACORN is "perpetrating the greatest frauds in voter history of this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy," to local efforts in Montana and Ohio, the GOP's strategy for winning in ten days now appears to be based on throwing out democratic votes. The Oregonian reported the Oregon version of this narrative this morning:
A libertarian think tank in Portland said the state's voter registration rolls may include the names of more than 6,000 dead people.
The Cascade Policy Institute based its charge on a comparison of names and dates of birth of Oregon registered voters with the Social Security Death Master File, a list of more than 84 million deceased Americans.
"We believe this has the potential for voter fraud being that Oregon is a vote-by-mail state," Jeff Alan, Cascade's chief investigator, said in a letter to state Elections Division Director John Lindback.
However, when Lindback compared the names on CPI's list to the state's voter registration database, they came up with a far smaller number:
Lindback said 4,998 of the names are classified as inactive or canceled voters and were not mailed ballots for the Nov. 4 general election. He said his staff randomly called 37 of the 1,144 remaining people who were classified as active voters and found that 16, or 43 percent, are alive and 21, or 57 percent, are deceased.
Lindback said that if that ratio held for the full list of 1,144 active voters that Cascade said may be dead, it would mean that ballots were mailed to about 650 deceased voters among Oregon's more than 2.1 million active registered voters.
As Lindback points out, the registration status of 2.1 million voters changes hourly, and it's impossible not to send some ballots to unqualified (or in some cases, deceased) voters. But that doesn't constitute voter fraud. It's only when someone forges the signature of an unqualified voter that it becomes fraud. And there has been no evidence of systematic voter fraud in Oregon.
Why bring this up ten days before an election? Is CPI really interested in the "fabric of democracy?" Lindback thinks no.
"You need to be very suspicious of these things that come in so close to the election," he said. "It's not uncommon for people who are afraid they are going to lose to do things like this to try to cast doubt on the integrity of the election. There appears to be a fair amount of that going on now. There's no election system that's good enough for the loser."
Discuss.
|
Oct. 24, 2008
Posted in in the news. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
12:12 p.m.
Oct 24, '08
One word: McSame
Oct 24, '08
Ugh. The Cascade Policy Institute is perpetually disappointing.
Oct 24, '08
In addition to not being able to walk or talk, dead people also happen to be incapable of writing which would include signing their names to a ballot. So, if the county clerks check signatures on ballot cover envelopes the risk of fraudulent ballots would most likely be limited to a few clever forgeries.
Oct 24, '08
Concrete Pavement Institute
Oct 24, '08
Let me tell you what is perpetually disappointing. The information on this is out there, ubiquitous, tremendously available. And it took the media THIS long to begin to coherently marshal it up so that mainstream people will understand the claims against ACORN are infrastructurally unsound.
It's not a sure thing that mainstream people are going to be able to follow this and hold onto that fact.
I believe now that this was a central bone of strategy developed by the McCain team. Have to admit their sleazy timing is either god-blest or spot-on.
1:15 p.m.
Oct 24, '08
I know folks challenge my expertise in some other areas (that's OK Sal and LT, I can take it!) but this is right down my strike zone.
I am emailing some others to confirm, but my gut reaction is that the probability of a false positive when you are matching on first name, last name, and birth date, using an 84 million record file and a 2.1 million record file, is pretty high.
5,000 / 2,100,000 = .00238 or .2% probability, 2 100ths of a percent.
It is surprisingly common to have name matches. There has already been problems with some interstate compacts that are sharing voter registration files, assuming that a name / birthdate match across millions of person files = a double registration.
In the vast majority of cases these are valid registrations of different people.
1:34 p.m.
Oct 24, '08
The Western States Center (Dan Petegorsky's fine organization) has an encouraging story about the defeat of a voter suppression effort in Montana by Republicans, which not only didn't work but backfired so badly that the RP executive director resigned and fled the state -- links to Montana newspapers at the WSC website.
1:34 p.m.
Oct 24, '08
Paul, I kept trying to figure out how to use your cool report (pdf) in this post. I guess this comment will have to suffice. Strike zone indeed.
Oct 24, '08
The Cascade Policy Institute besmudges the libertarian label. They are shills for the Republicans when they cannot find a business sponsor for their research.
It has been clear for several years that the voter-fraud issue is a red herring used by Republicans to suppress Democratic leaning voters. Since when is Libertarianism anti-democratic?
2:38 p.m.
Oct 24, '08
Now, let's see, to make systematic fraud out of this, someone would have to think to make the same cross-referencing CPI did, identify the 6000 names, then somehow get hold of the ballots. Unless they also did Director John Lindback did, there would be a lot of wheel-spinning over the 4500-odd inactive names, i.e. no ballot names. But assume fraudster efficiency so that they focus on the remaining 1500 active registrations that seem to correspond to people identified as dead.
What do we have then? First, if Lindback's sample is to be believed, failed efforts to get hold of the ballots of actually-alive real voters, whom one might think would object and even raise a stink about someone coming to their house to ask for their ballot.
Second, there will be some significant proportion of widows or widowers who maybe receive ballots for deceased spouses, or perhaps nursing home operators. Now, let's assume for the sake of argument that all such recipients are dishonest and decide to cast extra votes. Will all widows and widowers and nursing home operators vote the same way? No. So even if the assumption were true, it wouldn't lead to systematic skewing, unless you posit that the number in the hands of the dishonest nursing home operators was bigger and probably that would skew R.
So to get systematic skewing, you'd need to have someone trying to get hold of the extra ballots systematically. Any evidence of that? No. But assume it's happening anyway. How would it work? Most likely with an offer to buy the ballots, though perhaps there could be appeals to ideology. But again, the widows and widowers and nursing home operators won't have the same political views, so if a D or R oriented operative comes around, surely there are going to be some refusals and reports of the fraud efforts to police or elections authorities -- unless we assume 100% venality or financial desperation and no regard for party or ideology at all. This seems implausible.
Tracking down such ballots and their addresses and bribing or cajoling people to hand them over would also be incredibly labor intensive, again implausibly so. Putting the same resources into GOTV would be much more efficient.
The only other way for there to be systematic fraud coming out of the 1500 actively registered dead voters would be for there to be corruption in the elections division itself, such that someone there identified those ballots, sequestered them from getting mailed out, and either somehow cast all 1500 all by himself or herself, or was involved in a corrupt conspiracy to hand them off to other fraudsters.
So, given the implausibility of any of the individual level scenarios for systematic fraud with deliberate, organized partisan skew, to say that there is a substantial risk of systematic fraud amounts to saying there is a substantial risk of a corrupt conspiracy within the Elections Division, so wide that the unusual procedures that would be needed to identify actual dead people with active registrations would go undetected and unreported by anyone within the Division.
Again this seems unlikely, as it might or might not be the case that the top of the Division is politically appointed, but I assume that most Elections Divisions workers are career civil servants and not all from one party. Likewise given the responsibility for the County Clerks to handle the counting (not sure about the mailing) this conspiracy would have to involve persons in all 36 county clerks offices despite partisan differences across the counties.
I suppose it is remotely possible that the CPI has such a warped paranoid outlook that they actually believe such a conspiracy possible.
However, Occam's Razor points to them being in this case at least intellectually dishonest partisan hack propagandists, who moreover are willing to impugn the integrity of Oregon's electoral civil servants without any evidence to further their hackery.
Ugly and shameful.
Oct 24, '08
"Besmudges". Lovely little word. It's not really a word, Tommy. But I like it a lot. Heh. You prolly meant "besmirches".
I'd say keep "besmudges". It is sweet.
;)...
2:49 p.m.
Oct 24, '08
Oh, and again with the 1500 residual "identified dead" but actively registered names, there still are according to Lindback's sampling a substantial number that are names of actually alive people. So a conspiracy within the Elections Division would either have to identify the not-really-dead subset, or withhold ballots from living persons many of whom would miss them, or deal with double votes -- which would again come back to the County Clerk level I believe.
Oct 24, '08
Yes, well, the dictionary wants "be-smudges", which a bit safe for my taste.
Oct 24, '08
Here's yer problem, Thomas: the dictionary.com (this is where you vet your verbiage? gasp!) entry connects it to ads for smudging supplies, and blessings. So.... not sure you used the correct word (even if THEY were culturally competent this time) - you are saying that benighted gang that calls themselves an "institute" are a blessing, or a curse?
Be-smudge indeed if blessing. Besmirch in fact if curse.
Which, sir?
Oct 24, '08
Chris Lowe is perpetually awesome.
7:48 p.m.
Oct 24, '08
Thanks Joel.
Rebecca, I'm befuddled and bemused. Of course besmudged is a word, especially if you like it. Making be- words even if not commonly seen is ancient and well-respected mode of neologism (can that word describe an activity as well as its product? seems preferable to neologismizing); I bet if we betook ourselves to Shakespeare we'd find dozens not previously known. Seems like Tom was merely living up your strictures against the trite, the hackneyed, the overworn ...
Possibly my favorite be- word is one my mother uses, "beschwipsed," which describes the state of being just a tiny bit drunk. It probably has some relationship to something in German, not sure if be- ever works in German similarly to how it does in English.
Oct 24, '08
Ah, yes, Chris, the inner mysteries of the be-... however, as I looked down into his reference, www.dict.com... I noted that the be-reference he used actually takes you away from where he was heading!
The be-devilment of verbiage savoured through the ages. And so again I ask that crinkly ol' Sicilian guy: which, sir? Be-smudged as in "smudging, blessing, cleansing" - the reference that was attached to your word-age; or the meaning I believe you most surely did mean - the -smirch one, of course.
Heh. Words is lovely innit? Tasty, lovely. Lively.
Your mother is a genius. You can tell her CredZilla says so. Thate beschwipsed is very good. Nearly yiddischer, but prolly not.
Oct 24, '08
and: thanks for playing.
;)... gentle wink and a beckyface grin.
Oct 24, '08
JOel -- did you really mean to indicate that Chris overwhelms you with a viscerally uncontrollable sense of his power, his dread, his wonder and his might?
That's kinda where "awesome" puts one, that general vicinity.
Just checkin'. I hate misunderstanding folks.
Oct 24, '08
RW - I just heard it was a word the kids were using. Who knew there was a test?
11:32 p.m.
Oct 24, '08
Chris -- Would you mind grabbing your two comments about voter fraud, spiffing, and then posting as a full post?
2:18 a.m.
Oct 25, '08
OK Kari, Sat afternoon.
Oct 25, '08
Yah, Joel, you heard right. And, most regrettably, the kids and nearly everyone else have been torturing a word perfectly willing to serve us in a capacity far more splendid than as a misbegotten stand in for "great", "terrific", "wonderful", "creditable" or a hundred other better-suited and more-specific adjectives that would actually help the recipient of the praise to know just exactly how it is you were in appreciation. ;)...
Awesome is a word so special, it really should be reserved back for the experiences of indescribably overwhelmed and speechless awe that we as humans only very occassionally honestly experience.
Now, it could be an event of such stupendous size and gravity ones' mind cannot speak it. Or it could be a moment of such profound intimacy one's soul cannot recall even knowing such exists. Whichever, whatever, "awesome" is in the Gitmo of the verbal culture, let me assure you, and I wish we could hie it home to safety.
:)....
Oct 25, '08
ps joel - I would encourage you to make note of the intonations of those "around you" - Chris and Tom both know I"m in a playful mode here, and this is that lovely game that those of reasonable intellect occassionally engage, it's called "WORD!".
:)... this can be adapted to a gentle form of flirting, a joyous session of tickling, a concentrated session of respectful wrestling or intuitive danceformdance.
That's how wonderfully adaptable the game of "WORD!" is. And occassionally we engage it here.
That is the spirit in which I gave you a poke. All in good fun and engagement. Yes, Chris' mind is pretty first rate and he takes the time to post with substance and, typically, aplomb.
But I would not say he is awesome. I find no dread there. No speechless quaking. Hee hee.
Oct 25, '08
Joyous tickling? Mama wants!
Oct 25, '08
The Montana voter disenfranchisement effort failed. Excellent. That affects MANY people I know who are considered the First Americans, and who overwhelmingly fit the state rules that throw people off the rolls, but not for reason of criminality - only moveability or lack of money for licenses et. al. Has there been a counterbalancing effort to ensure that voters in this state are duly enrolled? One hopes.
While we are speaking of MT, how about SD, where the population is similarly-disposed in terms of lifeways, finances, and vulnerability to disenfranchisement as well as being overlooked by voter reg efforts? Heavily Indian Country states should be of special interest, since they do seem, particularly in rez communities, to be most-vulnerable to the voter-exclusion rules of different states. Again, NOT on criminal grounds. Just the administrative ones. One wonders if the etiology of these State laws reaches back into Jim Crow and deeper? Are we still entertaining resonances of those bad old times when exclusion was explicit? This is a worthy post-election item to take up on BO.
Sidenote: SD is again the forefront of anti-abortion activism. Trying to figure out if a pro-abortion mole is out there trying to establish an outrageous Supreme Court test case that will make this choice safe for all time, once decided, or whether it's really anti-abortionists making their stand for real.
Oct 25, '08
Join in Miss Jen! :)... Word, Word, most Wunnerful WORD!
I kid you not, when it breaks out up here, no matter the source, I'm giggling madly at my computer trying to force myself back to concentrating on serious things: like work.
It's one of the few joys of being a reader, a writer, a thinker... wordplay as a form of shared joy is a dynamic I wish I saw more of here.
Oct 25, '08
It probably has some relationship to something in German, not sure if be- ever works in German similarly to how it does in English.
My German has become very rusty, but I believe the German "ver-" is close to "be-."
Oct 26, '08
Tom Civiletti:
It has been clear for several years that the voter-fraud issue is a red herring used by Republicans to suppress Democratic leaning voters.
Bob T:
I was hoping to see more of an interest by progressives in recognizing and making attemots to stop or minimize voter fraud, but I guess not. It's all about seeing this as a fake issue by Republicans and about perpetually spewing bullshit conspiracy stories about voting machines designed by Republica-owned companies that turn Democrat votes into Republica ones (Ohio, etc). Give me a break.
Have you read anything by John Fund on all of this, or do you just write him off as a "corporate" journalist? Gosh, what a pea-brained attitude.
Tom Civiletti:
Since when is Libertarianism anti-democratic?
Bob T:
Sincewhen is trying to root out voter fraud anti-Democratic? I agree with Fund that voter fraud mocks and undermines democracy. But of you want an example of anti-democratic actions, look at ex-governor of New Jersey McGreevy who resigned but made it effective five months later -- past the deadline that would have allowed voters to elect a replacement in a special election. But then, the Civilettis of the world have already gone on record as finding no fault with dictatorship so long as the dictator has the "people's interest" in mind. Great. So voter fraud must be okay so long as the "peoples' interest" (i.e. election of Democrats) get served. Since this can't be admitted, voter fraud must be denied and attributed to Republican imaginations.
Oh well, I was hoping for some integrity to emerge from serious progressives. So much for that.
Bob Tiernan
Oct 26, '08
Bob: I believe Civiletti was saying that VOTERS do not walk into polling places and commit fraud - the percentage quoted is so vanishingly small as to have vanished, something like .000001% ever reported...
Not certain what your McGreevy example has to do with voters walking into polls and voting as somebody else? Thank you for explaining.
Oct 26, '08
rw:
Bob: I believe Civiletti was saying that VOTERS do not walk into polling places and commit fraud
Bob T:
If that's what he did, he left out too many key words. I responded to his general comment that the voter fraud issue (which means lots of things) is a fiction authored by Republicans -- this is the line I responded to:
the voter-fraud issue is a red herring used by Republicans to suppress Democratic leaning voters.
Also, keep in mind that the "polling place" is now anyplace a voter wants to fill out a ballot.
rw:
Not certain what your McGreevy example has to do with voters walking into polls and voting as somebody else?
Bob T:
That one had to do with Civiletti's comment defending democracy from anti-democratic efforts. Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem. Nice try, anyway.
Bob Tiernan
Oct 26, '08
rw's characterization of voter fraud is qualitatively correct. The impact of voter fraud has been found by multiple researchers to be effectively nil. John Fund's book on voter fraud is a fraud.
As to Bob Tiernan's comments about my attitudes toward dictatorship, he must be having a cranky day or be off his meds.
Oct 26, '08
Bob T: I actually was not being disingenuous. Your commentary was not clear. My comprehension indeed may be well below average. Why not take a poll of the locals on BO?
It does not matter that the polling place can by my teakwood-trophy-stand-from-a-British-officer's-club-in- Afghanistan that is our dining room table around which we sit on round cushions and Civiletti-furnished oriental rugs [gasping for breath and a pin prick to my egotistical bloat].
My ballot is winging its way to a soon-to-be-monitored verification place. And after that, to be counted. Also monitored if my county is a lucky one.
Signatures will be checked, rolls will be checked, there are balances to this system of ours, and researchers have been watching ever-more closely in the past eight years with an eye on drawing the veil off hidden points of wretched, crooked policy.
The fact is that it's not Dems who have been dragged into court in the past weeks by the Green Party, who, though not treated with the respect they deserve up here, HAVE been the ones shouting this issue into the wind since before September and are the ones who took it to the courts RIGHT NOW as their contribution to the war effort.
Oops.... my circuitous writing must be giving your comprehension a headache, eh?
THe point, the point.
Voter Fraud is a nil issue. Disenfranchisement of voters is a big problem. Both have been studied and documented. Only one has required statistically significant prosecution in the courts.
I'll give you two good guesses, my friend Bob, as to which of these it is?
Oct 26, '08
... also Bob T, are you saying that every state in the nation now has vote by mail? Did I miss that? I'm an old school fool -- I still do see people going to "polling places". I guess I indeed have comprehension troubles - should have my noggin checked out.
Thank you for your bellweather services.
Oct 27, '08
rw:
I actually was not being disingenuous. Your commentary was not clear.
Bob T:
I made it clear which parts of Tom Civiletti's message I was responding to.
rw:
It does not matter that the polling place can by my [home].
Signatures will be checked, rolls will be checked...
Bob T:
Fine, but there's still a difference between voting taking place away from monitors, and voting taking place in polling places we used to have here. Sure, sigs can be checked but if it's found that someone voted multiple times, by that time how do you find the ballots? If it's after the election, the results will not be changed.
Aren't you at all concerned that fraud can take place when, as in Ohio starting a few weeks ago, people with not very stable street address paper trails can be registered and fill out a ballot in the same minute? If one then goes to another town and re-registers under a different name and votes again, or even in the same town (like in "The Great McGinty" [1940] -- perhaps the best film about politics and polticians), by the time he's caught (if he's caught) the votes will have been counted and the results will remain. Don't you see a lot of room for abuse there?
Not much is going to happen after the fact. That's why I want to see a realistic registration system.
rw:
The fact is that it's not Dems who have been dragged into court in the past weeks by the Green Party, who, though not treated with the respect they deserve up here, HAVE been the ones shouting this issue into the wind since before September and are the ones who took it to the courts RIGHT NOW as their contribution to the war effort.
Bob T:
I have no idea what you're talking about. We were talking about I do know that some ACORN people are already in jail in Washington State.
rw:
Oops.... my circuitous writing must be giving your comprehension a headache, eh?
Bob T:
I've never been bothered by grammer school level compositions. But if you want to keep patting yourself on the back, go ahead.
rw:
Voter Fraud is a nil issue.
Bob T:
No it's not. Have you read John Fund's book?
rw:
Disenfranchisement of voters is a big problem.
Bob T:
I wanted to discuss voter fraud, not things like the Democratic Party's almost century-long disenfranchisement of black voters in the South. No wonder you were confused about what I was replying to.
rw:
also Bob T, are you saying that every state in the nation now has vote by mail? Did I miss that?
Bob T:
The subject was originally about the Oregon voter rolls. Did you miss that?
rw:
I'm an old school fool -- I still do see people going to "polling places".
Bob T:
Not in Oregon. Isn't that what Cascade Policy Institute looked into -- Oregon's voter rolls? Not Colorado's. Not New Jersey's. Oregon's.
Bob Tiernan