drguy's response to my question:

nothing? can you describe a plausible scenario in which your hypothetical wandering multivoter is able to walk in, make up a name and get a ballot?

was:

Chicago.

having lived for a time in both da land ob daley and in its adjacent nw indiana colonies, i can attest to having seen clerks in the local equivalent of dmv offices sell drivers' licenses bearing false data for about the equivalent of $80 in today's money to people with the right connections. i can't recall if i had a visa card back then but no matter; what i never left home without was my driver's license prudently wrapped in a crisp $10 bill. winter was an even crueler season for those who hadn't gotten right with their ward healer's neighborhood rep. no matter how narrow your street or how big a blade it bore, snowplows always missed the drifts in front of your place. not that it woulda made much difference cuz when you put a couple chairs out there to prevent others from parking in 'your' space (like everyone else on your block), they'd walk away soon as you drove off.

based on my experience, i was easily chumped by hysterical reports by the dreaded msm (who else??) of massive voter fraud in cook county during the 1960 presidential election.

noone knows better than yall how unreliable they can be (except, of course, when contriving or promoting blatant deliberate falsehoods).

i'm not sure whether you (like i) have been a victim of media incompetence, plain ol evildoing or an equal measure of both, but the scales have fallen from my eyes.

david greenburg, author of Was Nixon Robbed? prefaces the results of his research this way:

"That Richard Nixon was cheated out of the presidency in 1960 has become almost an accepted fact. You've probably heard the allegations: Kennedy's operatives fixed the tallies in Texas and Illinois, giving him those states' 51 electoral votes and a majority in the Electoral College. Fearing that to question the results would harm the country, Nixon checked his pride and declined to mount a challenge.

The story is rich in irony: The much-hated Nixon, later driven from the presidency for cheating in an election, puts country before personal gain. The beloved Kennedy, waltzing through life, pulls off the political crime of the century. Nixon's defenders like the story because it diminishes Watergate. His detractors like it since it allows them to appear less than knee-jerk—magnanimously crediting Nixon with noble behavior while eluding charges of Kennedy worship.

Ironic, yes. But true?"

considering the information he provides, greenburg's subtitle (The legend of the stolen 1960 presidential election) is nothing short of diplomaticaly restrained and objectively generous.

the bottom line (for me anyway) is linked to the main article here as a sidebar page detailing investigations by benjamin adamowski, who lost his run for re-election as cook county states attorney in the 1960 election and then went on to act as nixon's proxy.

After losing the battle at the state Board of Elections, Adamowski sued. He won another recount of the 863 precincts under contention. In that second recount, he fared considerably better than in the first—though still not well enough to win his election. Although this second recount didn't include presidential ballots, Professor Edmund Kallina of the University of Central Florida projected that if Nixon's tally had improved in the second recount as much as Adamowski's did, Nixon too would have fallen shy of victory.

Of course, many of the fraud allegations weren't the sort of thing that a recount could detect. To address other kinds of fraud, Adamowski, as a lame-duck state's attorney, convened grand juries to investigate his own re-election race. After his Democratic successor took over, the matter was turned over to a special state prosecutor, Morris J. Wexler. Wexler returned his report on April 13, 1961. He concluded that irregularities had occurred, but, again, not enough to have influenced any election outcome. He also returned the 677 indictments mentioned above.

There's one final wrinkle. Allegations of vote fraud by Republicans arose across Illinois too. (Outside Chicago, the GOP controlled most districts.) Such charges drew little scrutiny because of Kennedy's victory, but if the Cook County vote had been in danger of reversal, Democrats surely would have mounted challenges downstate to win back votes that may have been stolen in the other direction.

sorry for goin on at such length--especially considering it was inspired by drguy's one-word reply. thing is, it not only seemed to me germane to the issue, but also a courtesy to drguy who has recently begun showing symptoms of being unable to recall any but well-documented authoritative comments.

Kingbee... keep defending the fraudulent. I don't know why you are so adamantly against doing anything about fraud though. Sad.

I don't know why you are so adamantly against doing anything about fraud though

i'm adamantly against anything that discourages citizens from exercising their enfranchisement unless/until there's irrefutable evidence of a need to do so AS WELL AS irrefutable proof the proposed solution will be at least 99.9% effective as a deterent.

sad?

what's sad is how much support the voter id push is receiving from those of you who'd normally be up in arms over the establishment of new federal programs--especially programs with a clear potential for serious abuse--that are both unnecessary and ineffective.

unnecessary?

certainly is and will remain that way until someone presents verifiable evidence fraudulent voting at a much higher rate than the 0.00004% to 0.0009% actually detected (as opposed to mere estimates) during final tabulations of all votes casts in recent closely scrutinized, highly contested elections in different states.

inneffective?

consider the following excerpt from thethe brennan center's voter registration page

"Voter fraud is often conflated with other forms of election misconduct. It is extremely rare for individuals to vote multiple times, vote as someone else, or vote despite knowing that they are ineligible. These rare occurrences, however, are often conflated with other forms of election irregularities or misconduct, under the misleading and overbroad label of “voter fraud.” Some of these other irregularities result from honest mistakes by election officials or voters, such as confusion as to whether a particular person is actually eligible to vote. Some irregularities result from technological glitches, whether sinister or benign: for example, voting machines may record inaccurate tallies. And some involve fraud or intentional misconduct perpetrated by actors other than individual voters: for example, flyers may spread misinformation about the proper locations or procedures for voting; thugs may be dispatched to intimidate voters at the polls; missing ballot boxes may mysteriously reappear. These more common forms of misconduct are simply not addressed by the supposed “anti-fraud” measures generally proposed."

consider the following excerpt from thethe brennan center's voter registration page "Voter fraud is often conflated with other forms of election misconduct. It is extremely rare for individuals to vote multiple times, vote as someone else, or vote despite knowing that they are ineligible. These rare occurrences, however, are often conflated with other forms of election irregularities or misconduct, under the misleading and overbroad label of “voter fraud.” Some of these other irregularities result from honest mistakes by election officials or voters, such as confusion as to whether a particular person is actually eligible to vote. Some irregularities result from technological glitches, whether sinister or benign: for example, voting machines may record inaccurate tallies. And some involve fraud or intentional misconduct perpetrated by actors other than individual voters: for example, flyers may spread misinformation about the proper locations or procedures for voting; thugs may be dispatched to intimidate voters at the polls; missing ballot boxes may mysteriously reappear. These more common forms of misconduct are simply not addressed by the supposed “anti-fraud” measures generally proposed."

Considering they don't know squat...try these instead:


Link

Or this:

In the midst of a heated congressional race in California, the Democrat Party candidate was heard advising a crowd she knew were illegal aliens to vote and work for her campaign. Democrat Francine Busby supports the bipartisan immigration reform plan that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) helped hammer out with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA. Busby believes that the amnesty serves as the heart of the legislation approved by the Senate last week.

Or this:

In 1996, Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, making it a federal crime for non-citizens to vote in any federal election (or state election, unless authorized by state law). As a penalty, ineligible non-citizens who knowingly vote may be deported. Additionally, a non-citizen who falsely claims to be a United States citizen is in violation of this law. However, there are many documented reports of non-citizen voting,[1] [2] and there is no evidence of prosecution of the aliens for their action. With nearly 19 million foreign-born residents who are not U.S. citizens in the country in the 2000 Census and an estimated 9-11 million illegal residents (many of them not also counted in the Census), the potential is enormous for non-citizens to affect the outcome of elections.

Or even this:


Link

Then come back and say we don't need any form of ID.

The kind of voter fraud that Democrats have used effectively is getting other people to vote for people who don't want to bother going to vote. Demcoratic activists will go into very poor neighborhoods and exchange cigarettes or booze in exchange for voter registration and then go and vote for them.

The constiuents of Democratic candidates have proven time and time again to be a lot less motivated than constiuents of Republicans. People should have to vote in person or if they are going to vote by absentee have to put some effort for it. Voting is a right but that means my vote should count as much as someone else's vote, not be canceled out by some activist voting in place of a homeless person who couldn't be bothered to vote.

Deference, are you kidding? Are you saying publicly right now that you aren't aware of what she just pointed out?

I don't have the inclination to put together every clip on Democratic cheating in the manner she and others have described but luckily I don't have to, someone else did:

Book: If it's not close, they can't cheat.

Incidentally, there were a number of articles from the 2000 election about Democrats in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Arizona giving out cartons of cigarettes in exchange for registering to vote. But then again, you think Bush was behind 9/11..

 

"A Defiance County man has been arrested for allegedly filing more than 100 false voter registration forms in exchange for crack cocaine from a Toledo woman working on behalf of the NAACP’s voter registration drive.

Chad Staton, 22, of Stratton Ave., faces a fifth-degree felony charge of false registration after sheriff’s deputies said he filled out the registration forms by himself — using either fictitious names or addresses — and gave them to Georgianne Pitts, 41."

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041018/NEWS03/41018011/-1/NEWS

That's a nice link, Draginol. Unfortunately, it provides no specific citations, quotes from the book, etc. . So not only does Emily not have any verifiable account to offer us, but you don't either.

I've read the book and it does contain countless examples.  However, I don't care enough whether you believe the issues we're talking about exist or not enough to spend time to repost them.

If you don't think Bush was behind 9/11 then feel free to go back into that thread and clarify what you mean.