Tuesday, March 02, 2010

Inconsistency in Wingnuttistan

Of course, that's nothing new.

Mike Moyle's bill to require voter ID has passed the House and is headed for the Senate. I suspect it will probably become law. This statement in Betsy Russell's report is telling:
Moyle said there’s no way to know if fraudulent voting is going on
Or, put another way, he doesn't know that fraudulent voting is occurring. We have a bill being passed despite there being no demonstrable need for it. Still, I guess it will serve some purpose. Per Dell Raybould:
I’m in favor of this bill if it does nothing else than put a halt to a lot of these rumors about fraudulent voting.
Yes! A bill to end rumors. Great use of legislative time. Actually, as noted by Mountain Goat, Sisyphus and others in the comments to Russell's story, the bill is intended to suppress minority voting, probably among the Hispanic community in Idaho. Voter fraud is a favorite topic of Rush, O'Reilly, Hannity, Beck and their ilk, and our deep-thinking and careful legislators are happy to pick up that baton and run with it. Again, admittedly without a demonstrable need.

And the inconsistency? Idaho legislators are famously for local control, except only down to the state level. Below that, local control, very bad. See, if counties are experiencing attempts at fraudulent voting, they already have the tools to discover that and expose it. If counties saw a need, they'd be asking for the bill, or otherwise taking steps to prevent fraud. Moyle's bill imposes some of that hated gumment regulation on folks. For no known reason (that he'll admit to). And it imposes the requirement on local government and voters.

12 comments:

Sisyphus said...

Great post. Fricking cowardly Democrats voting for it too, like they have something to lose. Pinheads.

Alan said...

Indeed. Republican-lite is not becomming to Democrats. I guess they don't realize they're probably hurting their chances of making gains among Hispanic voters.

Ender said...

Unfortunately, you selectively edited Moyle's comment. Moyle said that yes, but you didn't include his reason behind that statement. Moyle said that because the state doesn't currently check IDs, there is no way to no if voter fraud is occurring.

I am not offering opinion on this subject, just asking that there be some integrity in reporting what happened.

Ender said...

Unfortunately, you selectively edited Moyle's comment. Moyle said that yes, but you didn't include his reason behind that statement. Moyle said that because the state doesn't currently check IDs, there is know way to no if voter fraud is occurring.

I am not offering opinion on this subject, just asking that there be some integrity in reporting what happened.

MountainGoat said...

Agreed, great post.

Let's just think about this for a minute. For fraudulent voting to be taking place, a person would have to know the name and precinct number of a registered voter, show up at the precinct place before they did (or hope they didn't show up at all) and then sign for their ballot and vote in their stead.

If they show up on election day to register at the polls they already have to bring proof of residence and a photo ID.

Seems that voter fraud is highly unlikely given all of that.

alan said...

Yes, I did leave out the reason, but the reason is irrelevant. The salient fact is that he does not know of an existing problem. As MG points out, if someone showed up early and voted my my place, I'd know when I went to vote, and then the poll workers would also know. But we're not hearing any of that.

fortboise said...

"...a person would have to know the name and precinct number of a registered voter, show up at the precinct place before they did (or hope they didn't show up at all) and then sign for their ballot and vote in their stead."

And if the real person then showed up expecting to vote, and was told "huh uh, you already voted!" just imagine the fracas that would ensue. I'm guessing this has happened, mmm, never.

Of course with voter turnout so horribly low (especially in lesser elections), the wildcat voter's odds of exposure is relatively low (50-50, maybe even 3:1 in a small ballot), but for what benefit? Massive voter fraud to swing an election?

Maybe Moyle does has a valid concern. The kinds of people who have been getting elected in Idaho are demonstrably sub-par. There may be a conspiracy of fraudulent Republican voters in Idaho.

alan said...

Ah, TVA, you've hit upon the essential truth. A fraud is being perpetuated upon our entire political system when uninformed or misinformed voters show up and elect morons and wingnuts. Other than a literacy test, I'm not sure how we'd solve that problem. Voter ID won't.

Geoff said...

I think "inconsistency in wingnuttistan" is kind of redundant, like "cold spell in Antartica".

Bubblehead said...

Playing devil's advocate here, I'm wondering if the hypothetical "person who would vote for Democrats but doesn't have ID" isn't even more rare than "people who fraudulently vote". Do you have any examples of such a person in Idaho?

Alan said...

Admittedly, I know of no specifc examples in Idaho. I'm not saying Moyle's effort will do much voter suppression, because the populations that are hindered by the ID requirement aren't real numerous in Idaho. I'm saying that his intent is probablytojust sign on to the national effort by the wingers to suppress voting.

slfisher said...

I did a story on this as well.