You can tell how much people love something by how strongly they defend it. The lefties pooh-poohing voter fraud show just how much they truly care about the democratic process. They hold up claims of "voter suppression" as a fig leaf to cover the fact that they have no real interest in protecting the integrity of the vote, by doing things like, oh, checking the identification of the person to see if they really who they say they are. They get the vapors (or act as if they do) over the notion that someone would be troubled to get a state ID card, but don't so much as flinch regarding the possibility that same person's vote is being misappropriated by someone else or canceled out by a fraudulent vote.

Even if the report in question addressed voter fraud broadly and accurately, the attitude about the possibility of voter fraud and protecting the vote tells us who we need to keep our eyes on when ballots go missing, etc.

PS That's an awful way to treat something as fine as an egg salad sandwich.

Some more quick thoughts:

- It is self-evident that to be able to add to one's vote count by several hundreds or thousands of votes every Election Day would be highly desirable.
- It is therefore a self-evident temptation to fraud.
- If, as outlined in this excellent essay, there is little chance of being caught or punished for obtaining those precious several thousands of votes fraudulently, that would seem to indicate that voter fraud -- in the sense of ineligible or non-existing voters casting votes -- is nearly inevitable.
- Furthermore, if the areas where capture or punishment is LEAST likely is in the cities -- where Democrat Attoneys General preside nearly unanimously -- then it is likely that nearly all voter fraud is pro-Democrat.

To have an automatic several hundred or thousand extra votes every election day is HUGELY powerful. Frequently to tip a key city is to tip a state, is to control appointments and districting, is to control seats in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Heck, we saw that in 1960 the dead vote in Chicago gave the Presidency to John Kennedy.

Someone on NRO -- Derbyshire, I think -- once wondered why all the cliff-hanger elections, or nearly all of them, tipped to the Democrats. The law of averages would have them go at least ROUGHLY 50-50, instead of 95-5 to the Democrat. However, if, as a honcho of the local Democrat machine, you control voter fraud at the ballot box level, then you also have, more than likely, several OTHER tricks in your pocket (as were on nausea-inducing display in the 2000 Presidential) as well.

It's no wonder that Democrats would resist any REAL attempt to do REAL democracy with REAL voting, as that likely would expose the fact that their support in the country is REALLY a lot less than is reported each election Day.

Your question is invalid. Mr. Minor said "hundreds OR thousands."
Reading: It's Fundamental!

You'd be a terrible criminal... The Chicago Democrat machine has been paying people to ride buses from precinct to precinct on election days for DECADES (my father was offered $5/precinct in 1972). At each precinct, you are given a name--you go inside, give the worker that name, sign that name on the sheet, cast your ballot, and get back on the bus. Voila, thousands of votes.

How do they get the list of names? Easy when your machine owns the clerk's office ("We got you that job, now you help us.") Start with the name and mother's address of every baby born in the county 18 years earlier and register them as voters in a "neighborhood drive." Add the names of everyone who died since the last election and register the ones who weren't registered previously. In a few years, it's a hell of a list.

I'm an optimist; I suspect if Illinois ever passed a voter ID law the machine would simply falsify some IDs for their bus riders.

Don't bother me with facts, we have an election to steal.

Speaking of Wisconsin and fraudulent votes. Drudge has a report from Milwaukee. Apparently it is against the law to reject the registration of Mickey Mouse and Adolph Hitler. As long as the address given below the signature is from a legitimate WI city, it is up to the parties involved to challenge the signatures and prove that the signatures are fraudulent.

Of course the law gives a ridiculously short challenge period for such signatures.

Are you kidding me?? The guy mocking the existence of voter fraud is taking the undisputed story of 2 ridiculously fraudulent names and asserting that because no one has actually committed the deed and voted under them yet, this means the problem doesn't exist?

I couldn't kill enough brain cells to make myself employ liberal logic.

Explain something for me, lib: When a city like Milwaukee produces more CAST BALLOTS than eligible voters, like they did in 2004, what is that? How do you explain that? How can you with a straight face even suggest that there's no such thing as voter fraud in America? And the numbers aren't insignificant. There were over 4,000 ballots in that one election that could not, by definition, be legitimate.

The Dem's attempts to poo poo this as a real issue are so transparent it's sickening. Do you honestly think you're fooling us? We know that you approve of voter fraud. You admit it every time you argue against election reform.

Any effective, modern vote fraud scheme that involves people voting illegally on a wide enough basis to be worth the effort is easy to prove: you identify the people who vote illegally and have them testify and provide evidence of payment, etc. You don't have to force folks to prove their identity to make vote fraud impractical. You cross folks' names off the roles when they do vote; any vote fraud scheme would then require illegal registrations or illegally obtaining information on election day as to who has not voted; both of which leave evidence and are simple cases to prove. Even if you could somehow illegally register voters or identify registered voters who will not vote, you still need to hire a large number of people to vote multiple times and hope that all of them keep their lips shut in a society that often rewards whistle blowing in these sorts of things.

Incidentally, all of 319 results show up when googling ["name-poaching" vote fraud]. The only ones that have anything to do with elections are this post or sites linking to it. What evidence is there of the existence of the "practice of name-poaching?"

It's easy to imagine how voter ID laws can prevent people from voting. I'm in a fairly lax state on ID laws, showed up at the polling place where I was properly registered, and still had to file a provisional ballot (that did not allow voting for some offices). This was because computerized systems invented to stop this phantom fraud are too confusing for some of the elderly people who tend to be election workers.

Lastly, felons voting isn't a vote fraud problem; it's either registration fraud or ineptitude/corruption on the part of people in charge of WI elections.