ACORN

[kandrathe]

"I mentioned it because you seem to have a problem with a Congressman getting educated by a farmer. In fact, if things in government operated as intended, the congressman might be a farmer who is taking 2 years off to serve their country."

No matter how intelligent or wise a farmer is, without further experience the man would not be able to run a country. Besides, what would become of his farm during that time? While romantic and idealistic, the notion that you could ask someone on the street how to run the nation is absurd. You may despise politicians, but not everyone can do the job.

There is no reason for a representative to "run the country", only that they inform themselves on issues before the congress and vote in a way that best represents their home district.

"This is where you may not understand our federal system. The federal government exists to maintain only what is common within the 50 states..."

I think I do. In the Netherlands, the central government exists to maintain only what is common within the 14 provinces. That just happens to be a lot. Too much according to some, too little according to others. Just like in the States. But in general we don't worry much about it because we have more important matters to argue about, like clothing regulations and the (im)politeness of handshaking :glare:

You could say we Dutch are too opportunistic for the Republican viewpoint. Instead of arguing where a decision must be made, we just (try to) make it. When it's too difficult or 'hot' to handle, it gets shoved up or down the hierarchy :whistling:

In a federation of States, the States should retain the bulk of the governing power, and only cede to the republic that power needed for governing the federation. It's not that the states are asking for special consideration, these are deals made between the congress person and some special public or private interest. Often, these pork projects are "thank you" gifts to important constituents who helped the congress person get elected in the first place. They just slip in an amendment on an unrelated bill, to fund some project in their home state.

"I believe the federal governments sole purpose is to protect individual rights relating to life, liberty, and the pursuit of their dreams."

I think you forgot the individual's global economic interests, which are now threatened by malicious Chinese valuta manipulations, from what I saw here.

It would fall under the trade negotiations area.

[eppie]

It's not that the states are asking for special consideration, these are deals made between the congress person and some special public or private interest. Often, these pork projects are "thank you" gifts to important constituents who helped the congress person get elected in the first place. They just slip in an amendment on an unrelated bill, to fund some project in their home state.It would fall under the trade negotiations area.

It seems that voter fraud is the last thing you have to worry about. I would never have made this remark here but I am happy you did.
Anyway, if these politicians are all so evil and do only what is in there interest, isn't it strange that an organisation like ACORN is doing the frauding? If false registering was so easy I would expect some of the big guys working on it as well

[Jester]

It's not that the states are asking for special consideration, these are deals made between the congress person and some special public or private interest. Often, these pork projects are "thank you" gifts to important constituents who helped the congress person get elected in the first place. They just slip in an amendment on an unrelated bill, to fund some project in their home state.

I'm not sure what you mean by "it's not the states", but it clearly is at least a large slice of not only the "special interests" in the states, but the voters and the politicians as well. Public largesse brings in money, and a great many people vote for their politicians by their ability to bring home the bacon. The politicians want the money for a wealth of reasons, including the ones you cited. It builds their popularity and their empire of connections and favours, increasing their shot at reelection, not to mention their shot at a nice job when they retire.

So, when you say "it's not the states", who do you mean it isn't? Because if it's the voters, the interested organizations, and the politicians, that's pretty much everyone.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

So, when you say "it's not the states", who do you mean it isn't? Because if it's the voters, the interested organizations, and the politicians, that's pretty much everyone.

It's not the voters in the States. It's usually not the legislature of the States either. For example, Minnesota representative Jim Oberstar added in an earmark for Cambridge-Isanti Bike/Walk Trail for $686,000. So, 15 years ago some people thought it would be nice. Some students raised $1200, and after years of political juggling, finally someone went to ask Father Christmas Jim Oberstar for the money to do this. To add some context, Isanti is a town of 5,485 people and Cambridge is of a similar size or maybe slightly larger. They are about 8 miles apart, or a 10 minute drive.

Here is a list of earmarks by state from the Office of Management and Budget.

As anyone who has ever managed infrastructure knows. Buying the item is only the beginning. There is a maintenance cost, and for many items an eventual replacement cost. So, for example the billions of dollars that the fed have pumped into the Minneapolis light rail system have only built the beast. It is not a profitable system, and the cost of feeding and maintaining it will eventually be shouldered by Minnesota tax payers. Unless our pork fed congress people continue to bring home the bacon to support light rail on the backs of the entire nation. So, thanks to all the people in the USA, we get our boondoggles.

[Jester]

It's not the voters in the States. It's usually not the legislature of the States either. For example, Minnesota representative Jim Oberstar added in an earmark for Cambridge-Isanti Bike/Walk Trail for $686,000. So, 15 years ago some people thought it would be nice. Some students raised $1200, and after years of political juggling, finally someone went to ask Father Christmas Jim Oberstar for the money to do this. To add some context, Isanti is a town of 5,485 people and Cambridge is of a similar size or maybe slightly larger. They are about 8 miles apart, or a 10 minute drive.

Here is a list of earmarks by state from the Office of Management and Budget.

As anyone who has ever managed infrastructure knows. Buying the item is only the beginning. There is a maintenance cost, and for many items an eventual replacement cost. So, for example the billions of dollars that the fed have pumped into the Minneapolis light rail system have only built the beast. It is not a profitable system, and the cost of feeding and maintaining it will eventually be shouldered by Minnesota tax payers. Unless our pork fed congress people continue to bring home the bacon to support light rail on the backs of the entire nation. So, thanks to all the people in the USA, we get our boondoggles.

Perhaps in time the cost will be shouldered by the local taxpayer. Perhaps it isn't a wise move at all, although I'm sure that varies considerably from project to project. However, many, probably most, voters measure a politician's success by the prosperity they've brought in the last few years, and the projects they can point to as their legacy. That's shiny and attractive, all the way from the US congress down the chain to the state governments and to a local level. Pointing to your iron discipline in keeping money away from the community, on the other hand, is a tough sell. It's asking your community to stop grazing their cows in order to help stop the tragedy of the commons.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

Let me preface this post with a few remarks.

First; in this presidential election, I support Obama for a number of reasons, primarily his views on the Afghani and Iraqi occupations and on the economy.

Second; although I've always been an independent voter, prior to Clinton's administration I would have considered myself a Republican. Their actions during his administration so disgusted me that I still lean more to the Democrats to this day.

Third; while I'd heard of ACORN in passing, I knew almost nothing of the organization until this discussion started. And from the information available to me, I still know next to nothing. I do believe that they are, in the words of Douglas Adams, 'mostly harmless'. I find it difficult to believe that people too indifferent to register will, once registered, become motivated enough to actually vote.

Fourth; I believe that there is more voter fraud than the NY Times would like us to think, but far less than the RNC claims. Again, considering the fact that we're talking about a secret ballot, it is hard to discern the fraud, harder still to determine who perpetuated it. However, the whole issue is, I think, a storm in a tea cup. And, personally, I doubt that any major organization is involved in voter fraud or registration fraud. To use another old cliché, that game is not worth the candle. Electronic fraud, on the other hand, is a big potential (possibly actual) problem, but not part of this discussion.

Fifth; While I find the claims of the RNC to be overblown and probably specious, I do not think that defending an organization with half truths or illogical arguments helps anyone in the long term. I do not believe that waging a war of lies is productive. So, on the basis of what I've seen so far, I think that ACORN is not involved in any organized effort to generate fraudulent registration nor to enable fraudulent votes. But, to flat out deny the possibility that they are so involved because no evidence to the contrary has been found is not logically tenable.

I cannot say, with any certainty, that ACORN is not committing fraud.

But that is exactly what you implied. And that is all I took issue with. This one line puts us into complete agreement. It is you who seems to have inferred from what I wrote that I think that ACORN is the devil incarnate and that you have spent many words defending that organization. I have never claimed that ACORN committed fraud. I simply pointed out that, given the evidence to date, to make the assertion that no registration fraud committed by ACORN employees has led to voter fraud is untenable.

--Pete

[Jester]

I have never claimed that ACORN committed fraud. I simply pointed out that, given the evidence to date, to make the assertion that no registration fraud committed by ACORN employees has led to voter fraud is untenable.

But, to flat out deny the possibility that they are so involved because no evidence to the contrary has been found is not logically tenable.

But the contrary claim, that registration fraud committed by ACORN employees has led to voter fraud is equally untenable. There is simply no evidence for that proposition, and the burden of proof is on people making the accusations. As the post that started this thread amply demonstrated, such accusations are currently widespread, and do not seem as concerned with logical niceties as we do. To defend ACORN against such accusations by saying there is no evidence behind them is not the same as saying that ACORN is unquestionably innocent of all such charges, come what may. It was the first defense I was making, and not the second.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

We're getting down to some fine hair splitting here, I think. Since I've got to go clean up a bank (after I clean up the UI mess 3.0 made), I'll let this subject go for a while after this post.

But the contrary claim, that registration fraud committed by ACORN employees has led to voter fraud is equally untenable.

Yes, but since I did not say that, it is moot to our dialog. Argue that point with those that support that statement, not with me. What I have repeatedly stressed is the similar, yet very different, "there is a chance (i.e., non-zero probability) that registration fraud committed by ACORN employees has led to voter fraud."

There is simply no evidence for that proposition, and the burden of proof is on people making the accusations.

There clearly seems to be enough evidence that some people feel an investigation is called for. So, "no evidence" is overstating your case. Perhaps "no objective evidence" or some such might be correct. And the burden of proof should always lay with the accusers. Once again, there is a difference between proof and truth. A trivial example; the state failed to prove OJ's guilt, but few doubt the truth. The Scots, being rather clever, allow a third verdict besides 'guilty' and 'innocent'. That verdict is 'not proven' and does not attach jeopardy.

As the post that started this thread amply demonstrated, such accusations are currently widespread, and do not seem as concerned with logical niceties as we do.

Yes. And in debating this at another venue (say a sports bar) I would not worry about logical niceties either. But this *is* THE Lurker Lounge where logical niceties and reasoned debate rather than emotional argument is (or, at least once was) the norm. :whistling:

To defend ACORN against such accusations by saying there is no evidence behind them is not the same as saying that ACORN is unquestionably innocent of all such charges, come what may. It was the first defense I was making, and not the second.

Then let us let it go at that.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Perhaps in time the cost will be shouldered by the local taxpayer. Perhaps it isn't a wise move at all, although I'm sure that varies considerably from project to project. However, many, probably most, voters measure a politician's success by the prosperity they've brought in the last few years, and the projects they can point to as their legacy. That's shiny and attractive, all the way from the US congress down the chain to the state governments and to a local level. Pointing to your iron discipline in keeping money away from the community, on the other hand, is a tough sell. It's asking your community to stop grazing their cows in order to help stop the tragedy of the commons.

Which is why democracies are theoretically doomed to fail. When the populace realizes they can just vote themselves money, the nation will eventually implode on its own burden of debt.

[--Pete]

Hi,

Which is why democracies are theoretically doomed to fail. When the populace realizes they can just vote themselves money, the nation will eventually implode on its own burden of debt.

Which is why we have a republic:) Of course, the history of republics isn't much better.

--Pete

[eppie]

Hi,
Which is why we have a republic:) Of course, the history of republics isn't much better.

--Pete

Finally I see what you mean (after I had done some reading). In my defense; both in the media as in politics people call the USA things like 'the greatest democracy on earth', and also many country are called (call themselves) a republic when in fact they are not.

[Hammerskjold]

It gets funnier and funnier by the day.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10762949?s...st_emailed


Though I think it's worth repeating that e-voting machines are potentially a bigger problem.

http://wvgazette.com/News/200810180251

[Jester]

Finally I see what you mean (after I had done some reading). In my defense; both in the media as in politics people call the USA things like 'the greatest democracy on earth', and also many country are called (call themselves) a republic when in fact they are not.

It is incorrect to conflate the terms 'republic' and 'democracy', and it is sloppy to describe the US as a 'democracy', athough it would probably be fair to say it has democracy (with appropriate cynical quotation marks, at times). Some republics are democratic republics, and it is into this category which the US fits. It is in this sense that the US would fit into a list of 'democracies', that is to say, systems of government where the leaders are elected. The same is true of the UK or Canada, despite being (technically, albeit not very realistically) constitutional monarchies.

The question is really whether you are describing the system of government as a whole, exclusive of all other types, or whether you are describing the properties of that system of government.

-Jester

[Jester]

It gets funnier and funnier by the day.

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10762949?s...st_emailed

That is absolutely, completely, 100% hilarious.

Gems:

Earlier this year, dozens of voters accused YPM, which had been hired by the California Republican Party, of tricking them into registering as Republicans. The voters said they thought they were signing a petition calling for stiffer penalties for child molesters.

...

Jacoby was working for as a subcontractor—Arno Political Consultants— duped them into signing an anti-gay marriage petition when they were told they were signing a ballot question about the sale of wine in grocery stores.

I applaud this young man's sang froid, his complete lack of respect for either basic standards of reasonable behaviour, or even his own safety from lawful imprisonment. Politics would be a much more entertaining game if all things like party registration and petition signing were actually elaborate, Dr. Evil-style overwrought schemes.

It still doesn't amount to a bucket in the ocean, but at least this time it's delightfully seasoned with schadenfreude.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10762949?s...st_emailed

From that article: "Earlier this year, dozens of voters accused YPM, which had been hired by the California Republican Party, of tricking them into registering as Republicans. The voters said they thought they were signing a petition calling for stiffer penalties for child molesters.

"In 2005, Massachusetts voters made a similar complaint.

"They said a signature-gathering firm that Jacoby was working for as a subcontractor—Arno Political Consultants— duped them into signing an anti-gay marriage petition when they were told they were signing a ballot question about the sale of wine in grocery stores."

That's what happens when you let morons vote. Does anyone really think the people who blindly signed something a complete stranger shoved in their face are responsible enough to determine who should catch dogs, much less who should run the country?

Though I think it's worth repeating that e-voting machines are potentially a bigger problem.

No question about it. I have a friend who is an engineer and a computer programmer. He worked in Texas for a few years and was there for the '04 elections. The same thing happened to him and to his wife. His choices were changed and he had to get an 'official' to help. Now think. If these machines were rigged, then they were rigged by someone not too competent. Someone who had a clue would rig it so that the screen showed the voter's selections, but the tally would go to the person in who's favor the machine was rigged. And done that way, no one would be the wiser short of a statistical analysis. Even if such an analysis were done, there would be no independent evidence and no way to correct the results.

--Pete

[eppie]

No question about it. I have a friend who is an engineer and a computer programmer. He worked in Texas for a few years and was there for the '04 elections. The same thing happened to him and to his wife. His choices were changed and he had to get an 'official' to help. Now think. If these machines were rigged, then they were rigged by someone not too competent. Someone who had a clue would rig it so that the screen showed the voter's selections, but the tally would go to the person in who's favor the machine was rigged. And done that way, no one would be the wiser short of a statistical analysis. Even if such an analysis were done, there would be no independent evidence and no way to correct the results.

--Pete

I don´t think this is the biggest problem if everybody can just register himself several times. As I said before, if this is so easy, now way ACORN would be the only ones doing it.

In Holland almost all voting stations used computers until the populists started saying that you can fiddle with them and thus they were not 'safe'.
You are right do about the fraud thing...it is not much of a fraud if everybody can see what happens.
I actually think it should be not a big problem to use computer.
Have them prepared and checked at a well maintained impartial site. Send all the computers ´blind´ to the places they are used. Connect them to a second computer, combine the numbers people are given when entering a voting station with those in the computer...encrypt all of this so that you can't quickly see who voted what etc. etc. Many voting station have less then a 1000 people using it (is that right) so rigging all of them would be a lot of trouble to go through.
I think the probability and the cause of rigging voting machine can be minimized to acceptable levels (almost 0) without too many problems. (think about testing them before voting starts etc.)

[ShadowHM]

I think the probability and the cause of rigging voting machine can be minimized to acceptable levels (almost 0) without too many problems. (think about testing them before voting starts etc.)

I still don't like the lack of ability to audit results.

Here, votes are counted by a machine. But they are still pieces of paper that are marked with an X by the voter in the spot provided and then dropped into a sealed box. Hence, if the results are challenged (and they are, at times), a re-count can be done, either by humans or another 'tested' machine.

If / when it is proposed that we move to something else, I will be one of those 'populists' protesting. :)

[--Pete]

Hi,

I don´t think this is the biggest problem if everybody can just register himself several times. As I said before, if this is so easy, now way ACORN would be the only ones doing it.

First, it is not easy to register multiple times. We are not quite the nation of idiots you make us out to be. Nor are we the nation of criminals you seem to think we are. Most (and by that I mean just about all) the people in the USA would only vote once even if it were as easy as you think to vote multiple times.

In Holland almost all voting stations used computers until the populists started saying that you can fiddle with them and thus they were not 'safe'.

Glad to hear that you have some smart people there. Consider: an organization might be able to fix a few thousand, maybe a few tens of thousands, of votes, max. But if you do all your voting electronically, then one person with the right knowledge and access can fix *all* the votes. There isn't enough knowledge about voting machines, yet, but we can take a lesson from gambling machines. See this for one especially notorious case and this for a discussion of some of the failings of the present system.

You are right do about the fraud thing...it is not much of a fraud if everybody can see what happens.

But it can be big enough. Many people are unobservant. They'll hit the 'submit' button without checking what the machine actually shows. Even if it is only one in ten, it can be more than enough to change the outcome of a close election.

I actually think it should be not a big problem to use computer.
Have them prepared and checked at a well maintained impartial site.

That would be a good start, in theory. However, how do you determine that a site is impartial. In the case of gambling machines, the state gaming commission employees are not permitted to gamble, which helps. But in the case of voting machines, do you hire immigrants? Where do you find non-partisan workers? It is the old 'who guards the guardians' problem.

Send all the computers ´blind´ to the places they are used.

Probably more useful in a place where there are more than two major parties. But with only two, if all the machines are fixed at the source, then the 'blind' distribution doesn't help.

Besides, you are overlooking the fact that this election isn't just a presidential election. In addition to the president, I will be voting for a member of the house of representatives (this is a bye year for senators in Washington), for state governor, for eight other state wide offices, for eight judges at various levels, for two district representatives (state legislature), for three state initiatives, for eight county charter amendments, and for a special district proposition. While not on this particular ballot, in times passed there have also been city officials, school board officials, school levies, and other local issues on the ballot. Which means that either the machines must be set up for the district they are going to be used in, eliminating the 'blind' possibility or they must be set up at the district level, opening the door for rigging at that level.

Connect them to a second computer, combine the numbers people are given when entering a voting station with those in the computer...encrypt all of this so that you can't quickly see who voted what etc. etc.

This is muddled. Are you looking to prevent voter fraud by the voters or prevent voter fraud by the people who have access to the machines? If the first, once a valid registration has been obtained, I don't see how this helps. If the second, if the machine changes the vote internally before all the hocus-pocus you suggest, what good does the rest do? The fraud has been committed and there is no way to undo it.

Many voting station have less then a 1000 people using it (is that right) so rigging all of them would be a lot of trouble to go through.

Not really. Most personal computers are only used by one person, yet a virus can still effect millions. Same principle. The effort is writing the code in the first place. Putting it into thousands of voting machines is simple, especially if done at the source of the machine or if incorporated into the program that sets up the machines for the district.

I think the probability and the cause of rigging voting machine can be minimized to acceptable levels (almost 0) without too many problems. (think about testing them before voting starts etc.)

OK, but where do I get the test code and who does the testing? Look back at the link to the gaming machines. It was precisely through the test code that the scam was introduced. So, your suggestion for a security measure turns out to be an additional security loophole.

The people who really understand this problem are pretty well in agreement that with the present infrastructure and technology no paperless electronic voting system is secure. This article does a good job of outlining the problem. Be sure to read the comments as well as the article, and possibly follow some of the links.

I'm glad electronic voting works in Holland, or at least I'm glad you think it does. But that is still not enough for me to support it here.

--Pete

[eppie]

If / when it is proposed that we move to something else, I will be one of those 'populists' protesting. :)

Sorry, didn't want to be offensive. I just think that there is no known voter fraud when computers are used.
Of course you could say that is because you would never realize it but I don´t think that is the fact.
If there was indeed some plot to fraud 'they' can do it anyway.
I am just not mistrusting governments (at least mine and that of the US) so much (and you know about my dislike of the Bush government.....still I don't think they are doing voter fraud).

[eppie]

Most (and by that I mean just about all) the people in the USA would only vote once even if it were as easy as you think to vote multiple times.

--Pete

Well than I am sorry about that remark. Than it means you truly are better people than us Europeans, and I sincerely mean that.


Further, I understand all your points. However, most things can also be done when using paper ballots. If there is this whole plot of people to rig elections they will be able to print some ballots as well, and have some people helping them during counting. Or just pay off the people that are counting votes, or pay off the people that call in the votes to the next person. It is all a question of doing enough checks in between.
When something is technically possible it doesn't mean it is practically doable or that there are people willing to undertake such action which contrary to casino fraud doesn't directly make you rich.