More on the Folly of Early Voting

The other day, I wrote Early Voting – A Monumentally Bad Idea. This morning, over on Pajamas Media, Tom Blumer expresses the same thought, though far more eloquently, in Early Voting a Travesty.

It is becoming more obvious with each election cycle that that the widespread adoption of no-excuses-needed early voting has been a big mistake.

Pollsters are now revealing exit poll results to the public weeks ahead of what is still quaintly referred to as “Election Day.” They do this by breaking out their results between “early voters” and “future voters.” The former amounts to de facto exit polling, which can all too easily be designed by an unscrupulous pollster to influence the latter. Even worse, state officials are getting into the act. One such example occurred Saturday in Colorado:

"Slightly more Democrats than Republicans have voted in Colorado, either by mail or at early-voting polling places.

"State officials said Friday that 219,000 Democrats have cast their ballots, compared with 215,000 Republicans and 131,000 unaffiliated voters."

Doesn’t anyone care about how early voting is corrupting the process of free and fair elections?

Yes, Tom, a few of us do care. If you share our concern, go read the rest of Tom's column and see what he has to say.

Early Voting – A Monumentally Bad Idea

During the past few days, a recording of a 2001 Obama radio interview has come to light. In it, Obama never uses the terms "socialism" or "Marxism," but leaves no doubt in listeners' minds that he believes in those discredited economic systems.

No doubt, many voters who previously favored Obama/Biden over McCain/Palin had second or third thoughts when they heard his words and considered their meaning. The majority of Americans are implacably opposed to socialism and Marxism, and would never dream of voting for a candidate who espouses either of them regardless of how attractive he otherwise might be.

Unfortunately, a large number of those voters have already cast their ballots for Obama, and cannot change their minds on the basis of this new information. A few of them have voted by absentee ballot, but most have used the Early Voting mechanism, by which any otherwise qualified citizen can cast a ballot prior to Election Day without having to give a reason.

What a monumentally stupid idea!

In any election, there will be some voters who have a legitimate reason for being unable to present themselves personally at their local polling place on Election Day and vote in the normal manner. Since the Lincoln administration, those voters have been able to participate through Absentee Ballots.

I've been in that situation myself a few times – back in the '60's, when I was serving in the Navy for three years, then living away from home on a dairy farm for a year, and finally spending four years attending veterinary school at Cornell. More recently, there was the year I spent in hospitals and nursing homes unable to walk as a result of MRSA sepsis. Other than that, I have always voted at my local polling place on Election Day, and intend to continue to do so as long as I am physically able.

Ever since I have been old enough to vote, I have never missed an election, either primary or general, in which I was eligible to participate. I'm not claiming any particular credit for doing so, either – there are many other people with similar voting records years longer than mine.

Was it always convenient to vote? Good Lord, no! For 36 years, i ran a solo veterinary practice, and had many demands on my time. It would have been easy to make excuses about being too busy, not having enough time, not knowing enough about the candidates, not caring which one wins because "it really makes no difference" – I'm sure you're heard 'em all. I've always considered participation in elections to be a sacred duty, though, and therefore a top priority.

Early Voting, along with such other "reforms" as so-called Motor Voter, and even, in some states, registration and voting at the same time, were introduced as well-intentioned measures to improve voter participation. As is so often the case, though, there was insufficient consideration of the Law of Unintended Consequences.

It was obvious that the widespread adoption of these measures intended to make registration and voting easier would also make it easier to perpetrate fraud. Equally obvious was the fact that those citizens who couldn’t be bothered to register and vote under the old system because it was too much trouble were likely to be the same ones who wouldn't make an effort to inform themselves about the candidates and issues on the ballot. Proponents insisted that the new procedures would include sufficient safeguards to prevent fraud, and argued that the right to vote did not include any corresponding obligation to become an informed citizen. Gradually, their views prevailed and their ideas were adopted.

Another obvious objection to Early Voting was the hypothetical situation in which important new information became known late in a campaign, after significant numbers of citizens had already voted. Early Voting proponents argued that such situations would be very rare – that in the modern Information Age, it would be impossible to keep significant information hidden from the electorate for very long.

Well, now we have been hit by the proverbial perfect storm. We have a charismatic candidate with a messianic complex, a mysterious background, and some problematic associations. He has attracted a huge cult-like following of entranced supporters whose enthusiasm knows no bounds. Among his followers are virtually all of the members of the mainstream media upon whom we depend for so much of our news and analysis. On top of that, we have an unprecedented global financial meltdown directly traceable, in large part, to the actions of a few corrupt, unscrupulous leaders of that candidate's party.

Under these circumstances, hordes of the candidate's mesmerized followers have been crowding into the Early Voting stations to cast their ballots for their new Messiah.

Suddenly, in the last few days before Election Day, comes this jarring dose of reality. Their Messiah turns out to be an old-fashioned '60's radical Marxist who believes in redistribution of private property by government fiat. That's not exactly news to those of us who have been paying attention, but this time, it's different. He came right out and frankly admitted his radical ideology to the radio interviewer, as well as to a caller. This time, he cannot deny or dissemble – the evidence is there for all to hear in his own words and his own voice.

How many of those who have already cast their votes for Obama might not have done so if they had been aware of this new information? We'll never know. We have no way of knowing. And even if we did know, it would do no good, for there is no way to recall those ballots once cast.

If, instead of voting, those citizens had participated in some sort of business transaction under similar circumstances, they would have some sort of recourse. For instance, if someone buys a new air conditioning system with the understanding that it is capable of properly cooling his house, then later learns that the system is incapable of performing the task for which it was purchased, he has recourse. Ultimately, if he is unsuccessful in working out the problem with the installer, he can take him to court, sue for rescission, and win. The entire transaction is nullified – the installer takes back his system, and the buyer gets his purchase price back.

On the other hand, when a citizen votes early on the basis of incomplete or deliberately withheld information, no such relief is available. What's done is done. In a very close election, just a handful of votes may well be enough to tip the outcome one way or another.

Is this how we really want to elect a president? It's time to reconsider this whole matter of Early Voting. Even though it may have been adopted with the best of intentions, it has proven to be a monumentally bad idea.

“I couldn’t believe this was happening. I thoughtthis only happened in Third World countries.”

In Hillary Backers Decry Massive Obama Vote Fraud, NewsMax's respected journalist Kenneth R. Timmerman reports that Barack Obama apparently cheated his way to the Democratic nomination.

With accusations of voter registration fraud swirling as early voting begins in many states, some Hillary Clinton supporters are saying: “I told you so.”

Already in Iowa, the Obama campaign was breaking the rules, busing in supporters from neighboring states to vote illegally in the first contest in the primaries and physically intimidating Hillary supporters, they say.

Obama’s surprisingly strong win in Iowa, which defied all the polls, propelled his upstart candidacy to front-runner status. But Dr. Lynette Long, a Hillary supporter from Bethesda, Md, who has a long and respected academic career, believes Obama’s victory in Iowa and in twelve other caucus states was no miracle. “It was fraud,” she told Newsmax.

You'll want to read the rest of it. It's a shocker.

The question now is not whether we can expect these thuggish banana republic tactics on November 4th, but what the rest of us – that is, the non-Obamabots – will do to defend against them.

We will need to be proactive – after all, the best defense is a good offense.

As Edmund Burke said long ago,

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Update: Amanda Carpenter tells us what we can expect in Dem Playbook Shows Dirty Tactics:

Dirty campaign tricks don’t die. They just become more refined with age.

Documents obtained by Townhall show the Democratic Party encouraged party activists to accuse the GOP of intimidating minorities on Election Day even if no evidence of intimidation existed in the 2004 presidential election. The tactic is being used again in 2008, this time to downplay fraud charges against a predominantly minority non-profit supporting Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Weeks before the Nov. 4 election Barack Obama’s campaign said the Republicans are attempting to suppress votes by drawing attention to the Association for Community Organizers for Reform Now’s involvement in rampant voter registration fraud across the nation. The nonprofit actively supports Democratic causes, such as minimum wage increases and housing assistance. ACORN endorsed Obama for president last February and has been paid by his campaign to conduct get out the vote activities during the Democratic primary.

ACORN wasn’t a household name in the last election but documents show Democrats were just as eager to accuse the GOP of treating minorities unfairly in 2004 as they are in 2008.

A nine-page section of 66-page 2004 Kerry Edwards Colorado state Election Day Manual titled “Minority Voter Intimidation” begins: “Over the past twenty years, there have been repeated efforts by the Republican party and Republican Party candidates to harass and intimidate minority voters in an effort to reduce the number of African-American and/or Latino voters.” The manual then instructs Democrats how to look for minority voter intimidation tactics and how to publicize it to the media with special tactics designed for mainstream and specialty press.

Click on the link for the rest.

Vote Fraud in Nashville – UPDATED AND BUMPED

Friday, 10/17/08, 9:30 PM: A few hours ago, Nashville's syndicated radio talk show host Phil Valentine took a phone call from Lynn Greer, one of the two Republican members of the five-member Davidson County Election Commission. Mr. Greer was so angry he could barely control himself. (For the benefit of readers who aren't familiar with Middle Tennessee, Nashville/Davidson County is a Metro area, in which the city and county governments are combined.)

He informed Phil and his listeners that earlier today, someone was bringing in vanloads of non-English-speaking Mexicans with no identification to one of the Nashville early voting locations. Along with the non-English speaking individuals came a bilingual woman to act as their interpreter. She informed the election personnel that she would accompany the voters into the booth, read the ballot for them, and insure that their vote was cast for the candidates of their choice.

The Davidson County Election Commission, including its Democrat members, decided that the individuals would not be allowed to vote on the grounds that since they were unable to speak, understand, or read English, they could not possibly be citizens, and therefore were not qualified to vote. In addition, Mr. Greer mentioned that these people were unable even to request the assistance of a translator themselves. Accordingly, Ray Barrett, Davidson County Administrator of Elections, instructed his employees to refuse to allow any of these individuals to vote.

However, someone prevailed upon Mr. Barrett to call the state in order to verify the Commission's decision. Brook Thompson, the Tennessee State Election Coordinator, then ordered Mr. Barrett and the Davidson County Election Commission to allow these non-English-speaking individuals to vote through their bilingual interpreter despite their lack of any sort of identification and total unfamiliarity with the English language.

Phil and Mr. Greer briefly discussed what could be done. They agreed that the only possible remedy would be for the Tennessee Republican Party to file suit in a Federal court. He told Phil that while he intended to urge the state GOP to make the effort, in view of the recent refusal of a Federal court to grant relief to State Sen. Rosalyn Kurita (whose legitimate Democrat primary win was overturned by the big shots of her party in revenge for her vote in favor of a Republican Lt. Governor), he held out little hope that it would be successful. He also noted that even if a court should decide that the votes of these people were illegal, there is no mechanism for withdrawing them. These are not provisional ballots. Once cast, they are inviolate.

There were several more phone calls in quick succession.

First, Brook Thompson himself called up. He told Phil that Federal law requires that these people be allowed to vote with the help of an interpreter if they wish. He pointed out that in some jurisdictions with a higher percentage of non-English-speaking individuals, the Feds require that ballots and registration materials be printed in four or five languages. Therefore, he insisted that he had no choice but to allow these people to vote.

Phil asked him about the requirement that prospective voters must be able to produce valid identification, and Thompson admitted that this is correct. However, he shifted the burden for enforcement back to the Davidson County Election Commission. When Phil asked him if he intended to send someone down to investigate why the ID requirement was not being enforced, Thompson began to stammer and splutter a bit, and finally gave a noncommittal answer to the effect that he'd look into it.

The next phone call was from a woman identified only as Barbara, who is apparently an officer in the Republican Women's organization. She informed Phil that aside from the identification requirement, Brook Thompson is ignoring another legal mandate of which he is definitely aware. She insisted that the law requires that a prospective voter who desires the assistance of an interpreter must personally request such assistance. In other words, the interpreter is not permitted to go up to the election officials and inform them that she intends to go into the booth and help the voter. She explained that the law includes that provision as protection for the voter against coercion and other forms of voter fraud. Unquestionably, Barbara was accusing Brook Thompson of deliberately ignoring that provision of the law, and thus allowing illegals to vote.

Within a few minutes, a man called up who informed Phil that he had been involved in Tennessee elections for 20 years, and was intimately familiar with the applicable laws. He agreed with Barbara, and added that Brook Thompson is not an attorney, and is not an authority on election law, but is a political appointee – appointed by Democrats. This gentleman disputed Thompson's assertion that Federal law mandates that voters be permitted to use an interpreter. According to him, elections are governed by state law, which plainly requires that any voter who wishes to use an interpreter must personally request permission to do so from the election personnel. He vehemently disagreed with Thompson's decision allowing these non-English-speaking people with no valid identification to vote in a Tennessee election.

The caller also informed Phil and his listeners that any voter has the right to challenge any other voter's qualifications. He advised all of us not to depend solely upon the election personnel, but to take the initiative and inform them of any questionable or suspicious activity which we observe at a polling place.

That's where the matter ended for today. Since it's now Friday evening, it is unlikely that there will be any new developments until Monday, 10/20.

Wednesday, 10/22/08, 5:00 AM: As of yesterday afternoon, there have been no further developments. Phil Valentine reported that he has spoken to various law enforcement authorities, and none have been willing to look into this egregious violation of election laws.

During yesterday's program, Phil spoke by phone with Quin Hillyer, Associate Editorial Page Editor of the Washington Examiner. Quin's paper just published his column Quin-essential cases: No Righting Voting Wrongs in Ohio covering similar voting irregularities in Ohio.

When Phil informed Quin of these recent occurrences in Nashville, his first reaction was a gasp of surprise. He then remarked, "This election is being stolen right from under our noses."

Phil is now trying to formulate a plan for some sort of direct action designed to force the relevant authorities to do their jobs. He's been successful in such efforts in the past. For instance, he was responsible for the famous 2001 horn-blowing mass demonstration at the Tennessee State Capitol which resulted in the defeat of then-Gov. Don Sundquist's proposed income tax. Whether he'll be able to devise a successful strategy this time remains to be seen, but if I were a betting man, I'd be putting my money on Phil.

Wednesday, 10/22/08, 2:10 PM: Welcome, Instapundit readers. I learned just a few minutes ago that Phil's aware of this post, and has verified that it is entirely correct. I'll update you whenever new information becomes available.

Thursday, 10/23/08, 1:10 PM: Donald Sensing of Sense of Events comments:

When nothing matter except gaining power, any means is justified by the end. Understand that on page 56 of the official DNC platform document, available online, it says explicitly that the Democrat party goal is to eliminate any identification requirements for either voting registration or voting itself.

Later, he linked to the relevant passage in the Democrat platform in this post. Donald points specifically to this excerpt:

we oppose laws that require identification in order to vote or register to vote

Nashteach comments:

The post is not entirely correct. Mr. Greer did NOT say these alleged voters were without ID. Valentine asked him and he countered they did have ID. Valentine then started giving examples of the weakest forms of ID one is required to have and Mr. Greer reiterated one must have something with an address and a picture or signature. Mr. Greer did not say exactly what these folks had. I also disagree that he was mad, and Valentine seemed to know the story better than Mr. Greer.

And if these details are all true, the media, liberal or not, would have covered this story. I'd love to know who Commissioner Greer called other than Phil Valentine. If these details are true, if the election workers let these people in without IDs as you claim, the media would cover it and the employees who let it happen would be fired. So, why has Mr. Greer only been paraphrased by Phil Valentine. If these fraud charges are true and, as some sort of witness, that's all Mr. Greer has done about them, call into a radio show, he should be investigated, too.

I was not recording the program, and wrote the post from memory. Subsequently, Phil (who I do not know and have never met except through an occasional brief email) was kind enough to review the post for correctness. He found no errors.

Subsequently, yesterday evening, I emailed Phil and asked him if there's any chance of his making the audio from the four calls (Lynn Greer, Brook Thompson, "Barbara," and that gentleman who said he's worked in Tennessee elections for 20 years and Brook Thompson was full of it --- there is no such Federal law) available on his website as a podcast, or on YouTube as a "video" (audio track with some sort of a picture). As of this time, I have not yet received a response. If and when Phil agrees to make the audio available in some form, I'll link to it. Then you can listen to it and draw your own conclusions. Until then, Nashteach, we'll just have to agree to disagree about what we heard, as well as about Mr. Greer's emotional state.

Sorry to state this so bluntly, but your argument that "if these details are all true, the media, liberal or not, would have covered this story" indicates that either you are hopelessly naïve, or that you think we are. Those of us who are conservative have long ago resigned ourselves to the pervasive liberal slant of the media. Particularly in this election, they are so far in the tank for the Democrats that they're growing fins and scales.

I can't vouch for the accuracy of Mr. Greer's allegations, because I wasn't there. However, by the same standard, you have no grounds on which to question them, much less to imply that he is lying. At this point, all we can reasonably do is hope that some additional evidence emerges which either corroborates or contradicts his account.

There's another question to be answered: "What's the point?" Nashville/Davidson County invariably votes for Democrats by a huge majority. Therefore, what motivation would the Democrats have to commit vote fraud when the result of the upcoming election is already preordained in their favor? Likewise, why would Lynn Greer raise the issue of vote fraud when even if the allegations were investigated and found to be true, the Republicans would still lose? Ideas, anyone?

Friday, 10/24/08, 4:02 AM: In addition to the commenters below, several other bloggers with links to this post are attempting to shed some welcome light on this controversial event.

Steve Owens, of Pax Parabellum, emailed me privately to let me know that he had spoken by phone with Ray Barrett, Davidson County Administrator of Elections. He reports what he learned on his blog in Tennessee Voting Shenanigans? Perhaps Not.

On the matter of the "vanload(s)" of immigrants voting... Mr. Barrett cleared that up as well. It seems that the TRUE story, which Mr. Barrett states Lynn Greer will corroborate, is that a Cuban couple came into an early voting center, already properly registered to vote, and requested assistance voting as neither one spoke English well. Mr. Barrett lamented the tendency of the media to pick up a story and run with it before getting all the facts. He stated that both he and Mr. Greer had been out in the early voting centers for several days making sure everything was being done according to the rules.

After all the instances being reported where people are trying to nullify or outright steal our votes, I am gratified that we really do have officials in government making sure our votes count as we cast them. After speaking with Mr. Barrett and his staff I get a real sense that we have such a person here in Nashville.

Ned Williams, of WisdomIsVindicated, apparently has some inside contacts at the Davidson County Election Commission. After discussing the situation with them, he posted this informative piece: Election "fraud" fog in Nashville.

But something that needs to be pointed out in this whole debate is that one means of undermining ballot integrity is by flooding a polling place with potential voters who require special treatment. Given the histrionics about voter suppression and other forms of "disenfranchisement," poll workers are often motivated to give the demanding party (e.g., the ACORN or La Raza rep. or the friendly ACLU lawyer-on-loan) whatever they demand rather than wait for confirmation from Election Comm. HQ or rather than go through all the steps that are required for determining the person's eligibility to vote. One clever trick I've heard of (I think in PA in 2006) is to swamp a polling place (which invariably has a limited number of provisional ballots) with "ineligible" voters who ultimately are allowed to cast normal, untraceable ballots rather than be turned away because of a shortage of provisional ballots.

Complicated and rife with technicalities, you say? No doubt; but it is difficult to conduct a fair ballot (actually, it is almost impossible, especially if you expect it to be simple and easy) when determined persons have concluded that the end of winning an election justifies even immoral means.

By all means, read the whole thing.

Saturday, 10/25/08, 2:15 AM: I have just sent the following email to Davidson County Election Commissioner Lynn Greer:

Dear Mr. Greer:

I'm a retired veterinarian and sometime blogger. I live in Lebanon and therefore vote in Wilson County, so I have no dog in this fight.

Last Friday, 10/17/08, I was listening to the Phil Valentine Show when you called in. I listened to your call, and the others which it triggered, with considerable interest.

A few hours later, I wrote up this blog post http://inoculate128.blogspot.com/2008/10/vote-fraud-in-nashville.html#links from memory since, unfortunately, I had not made an audio recording of the program.

My post attracted considerable interest, including links from UT law professor Glenn Reynolds' Instapundit, Bill Hobbs' HobbsOnline, Kay Brooks, Donald Sensings' Sense of Events, Free Republic, VoteFraudSquad.com, and several other popular blogs and websites.

There has even been international interest. One British blogger, who writes under the nom de plume Not a Sheep, linked to the story and left a comment under it.

Wednesday morning, 10/22/08, I emailed Phil (whom I do not know and have never met), advised him of what I had done and the degree of interest it had engendered, and asked him to check the post for correctness. Within a few hours, he wrote back to let me know that he had read the post and found it to be entirely accurate to the best of his recollection, except that he thought that the State Election Coordinator's first name was spelled "Brooks." I verified through the Tennessee Blue Book that his name is, indeed, spelled "Brook."

Most of the reaction to the post has ranged from support to outrage. For instance, Donald Sensing pointed out that such actions are entirely consistent with the Democrat Party Platform. He linked to it in this post http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2008/10/voting-fraud-in-nashville.html, and drew particular attention to the phrase "we oppose laws that require identification in order to vote or register to vote."

However, there have been a few skeptics. One blogger, Steve Owens, of Pax Parabellum, emailed me privately to let me know that he had spoken by phone with Ray Barrett. He then wrote up what he had learned in this post: http://www.paxparabellum.com/2008/10/tennessee-voting-shenanigans-perhaps.html

In it, he states: "It seems that the TRUE story, which Mr. Barrett states Lynn Greer will corroborate, is that a Cuban couple came into an early voting center, already properly registered to vote, and requested assistance voting as neither one spoke English well."

Another, Ned Williams, of WisdomIsVindicated, apparently has some inside contacts at the Election Commission. After discussing the situation with them, he posted this: http://wisdomisvindicated.blogspot.com/2008/10/election-fraud-fog-in-nashville.html

Two commenters, N.S. Allen and Nashteach, left thoughtful, serious comments on Kay Brooks' blog following this post: http://kaybrooks.blogspot.com/2008/10/voter-fraud-in-nashville.html Nashteach also visited my blog and left a similar comment there. Kay has attempted to reply to their comments as best she could with the information available to her.

I have emailed Phil and asked him if there is any way he could post the audio of the four calls --- yours and the three related ones which followed --- on either his website or YouTube so that those who were not listening to the broadcast could hear the calls for themselves. So far, he has not responded.

Please read the blog posts I have linked in this email, including the comments, then send me your response. I'd like to know whether, in your opinion, my recap of your call was correct, and if not, why not. Steve Owens would like to know if you will, in fact, corroborate Ray Barrett's explanation of what happened last Friday. N.S. Allen and Nashteach would like answers to the points they have raised.

Finally, I have a question of my own, which you may or may not be in a position to answer. Specifically, what could be the point of all this? It is a foregone conclusion that the Democrats are going to carry Nashville/Davidson County, so what motivation would the Democrats have for cheating in this election when they are going to win it anyway? Conversely, what motivation would you have for calling in to Phil Valentine as you did if your account of events were inaccurate, when it would make absolutely no difference in the ultimate outcome even if it were conclusively proven to be 100% true?

I am posting this message to my blog, and also cross-posting it as a comment to Kay Brooks' post. With your permission, I would like to post your reply, so that all of those who are following this story can have the opportunity to read your side of it in your own words.

Thank you in advance for your attention, and thanks also for your many years of dedicated public service.

--
Respectfully,
[me]

Provided he grants permission to do so, I will post whatever reply I receive from Mr. Greer. Should he reply, but withhold permission to post his words, I will paraphrase the content of his message. If I receive no response after several days, I'll let you know.

Cross-posted as a comment to Kay Brooks' Voter Fraud in Nashville post.