Comments (39)

Sholom wrote on April 25, 2007 3:06 PM:

The important question here is: is John Lott, et al, correct?

E.g., I keep hearing that 99%/100% figure about certain districts (whether it be in Philly, or elsewhere). Is there demonstrable evidence to refute it?

Crust wrote on April 25, 2007 3:29 PM:

Sholom asks:

"The important question here is: is John Lott, et al, correct?"

The answer to that question -- independent of context -- is almost always no, John Lott being who he is. And presumably it is no here too. But it would be a good idea to link to a debunking of these claims (assuming they are false and/or misleading).

bcraw wrote on April 25, 2007 3:34 PM:

It's an important question indeed. Where exactly do you keep hearing that 99%/100% figure with respect to Philadelphia? Because we at TPM have been trying to either substantiate or refute it ourselves and have had some difficulty finding its source. The quote from the Bronars/Lott piece is "Preliminary numbers show some precincts had 100 percent of the registered voters voting, with 99 percent of their votes going for Gore. There is no obvious explanation for how this is possible." That last sentence would seem to suggest they're not sure where they got the figure either.

Mark r wrote on April 25, 2007 3:34 PM:

I agree. Regardless of who wrote the article (ad hominem, anyone?) are the facts it asserts true? They seem pretty ridiculous, but why the focus on John Lott? Is it really worth a momentary giggle to not refute the argument at all?

Anonymous wrote on April 25, 2007 3:39 PM:

Notice the subtle difference between the two statements on Philadelphia. In one, Rove says "100 percent of the living adults...are registered". Bronars and Lott say "some precincts had 100 percent of the registered voters voting". So which is it, 100% of the adults are registered or 100% of registered voters voted. Or is the discrepancy a simple case of making up facts as you go along?

My guess would be that the total number of voters in some precincts equals or exceeds 100% of the adults in that precincts. The explanation is simple: people are usually not taken off the voter rolls when they move. What they don't say is that's equally true in Republican districts. I live in one and all three of my adult children are on the voter rolls despite the fact that they've all moved away.

Mark r wrote on April 25, 2007 3:48 PM:

Here's a link for Philadelphia in the 2000 election, presidental results are towards the middle. According to that site 53.9% of registered voters voted in the 2000 election. The bottom of the page has a link for Philadelphia's registriation numbers. 98.6% of the voting age population was registered to vote in 2000. That number seems pretty remarkable but I have nothing to gauge it against.

http://www.seventy.org/stats/mayoralturnout.html

Rodney Lamprey, jr. wrote on April 25, 2007 3:50 PM:

You have to remember the way it works at the Bush Administration: Karl Rove is the source for Bronars and Lott's Op Ed, and their Op Ed is the source for Karl Rove's speech. None of it is substantiated by any facts, but they probably do come out of Rove's voter corruption playbook.

Austin Cooper wrote on April 25, 2007 3:57 PM:

Ah, here's how it'll play out -- Rove, the 'Teflon Don', skates on everything... until he is unmasked as a *Plagarist*, and be forced to resign.

Yes, it's a stupid joke. Would that it were that easy, though.

Anonymous wrote on April 25, 2007 4:25 PM:

Looking at the Philadelphia numbers for 2000 we find that 53.2% of voting age adults voted. Nationally, 51.3% of voting age adults voted, so the numbers are in line with national figures. There's a simple explanation for the high number of registered voters, but it makes no difference how many people are on the voting rolls if they're not actually casting ballots.

ms clark wrote on April 25, 2007 4:32 PM:

I've lived in Oregon for 28 years and voted by mail in each election since it was instituted here and NEVER have heard of the practice of "turning your vote in at rallies". I live in the second largest city in Oregon, so I think I'd have heard of this if it were widespread. . . Maybe it's just a Republican kinda thing??

Declan wrote on April 25, 2007 4:47 PM:

One small clarification -- in your initial quote from the Rove speech, you include the phonetic spelling "Roamblank." This is actually Rove's butchered reference to the law/lobbying firm Blank Rome. It is immediately preceded by a reference to "Norcross" -- undoubtedly David A. Norcross, who is a well-connected BR partner and a member of the Republican National Lawyers Association, which Rove was addressing.

Sven wrote on April 25, 2007 4:47 PM:

Apparently the Fels Institute of Government at U of Penn has been doing research in this area.

http://www.upenn.edu/pennnews/article.php?id=112

bcraw wrote on April 25, 2007 4:55 PM:

You're right about the Rome Blank thing, Declan. I corrected it in the transcript. Thanks.

TorranaTony wrote on April 25, 2007 5:00 PM:

I almost hate myself for bring this up, but...

What's to stop a suitably motivated political operative (or protege', or sociopathic copy cat) from conducting a campaign of "apparent" voter fraud to act as a distraction from other electoral dirty tricks? Have someone register fake or ineligible voters, listing them as say, democrats (for the sake of argument), thereby justifying assaults on legitimate voter rights.
Ah, just crazy conspiracy stuff, like breaking into your own election headquarters so you can blame it on your opponent, or sending an identifiably forged document to a non sympathetic member of the press (maybe one who had reported on you when you worked for, say the Nixon campaign)hoping they'll seize on it and embarrass themselves.
Ah, just youthful folly I suppose.

[code word canvas: as in canvas for illegal voters for your opponent (or canvas=the durable fabric of deception)]

Anonymous wrote on April 25, 2007 5:11 PM:

You take the numbers for voting age population and you take the number of people registered. If there are more people registered than the census said lived there in 2000, you have more than 100% voting-age population registered.

Problem is this ignores the fact that the population may have increased. It ignores the fact that people may have moved out and that the National Voter Registration Act doesn't allow you to purge people from voter registration lists for four years. Places that have over 100% of VAP registered tend to be places with high transient populations. People come in, register, and move out. You can't purge them for four years. Meanwhile, more people move in and register.

They make it sound like it's somehow fraudulent when what it really is is an artifact of the way voters are registered and/or purged.

Sometimes, it genuinely is poor list maintenance. But given the fact that there is no massive voter fraud problem, what's better? Aggressive purges, which will no doubt purge some people who actually still live there, or purging less aggressively, in which case, people tend to vote where they live?

I mean, really: there are not armies of people registered in multiple jurisdictions driving around from poll place to poll place on election day voting in multiple locations. That's the only way you could possibly have "massive voter fraud."

TorranaTony wrote on April 25, 2007 5:16 PM:

I almost hate myself for bring this up, but...

What's to stop a suitably motivated political operative (or protege', or sociopathic copy cat) from conducting a campaign of "apparent" voter fraud to act as a distraction from other electoral dirty tricks? Have someone register fake or ineligible voters, listing them as say, democrats (for the sake of argument), thereby justifying assaults on legitimate voter rights.
Ah, just crazy conspiracy stuff, like breaking into your own election headquarters so you can blame it on your opponent, or sending an identifiably forged document to a non sympathetic member of the press (maybe one who had reported on you when you worked for, say the Nixon campaign)hoping they'll seize on it and embarrass themselves.
Ah, just youthful folly I suppose.

[code word canvas: as in canvas for illegal voters for your opponent (or canvas=the durable fabric of deception)]

barrelhse wrote on April 25, 2007 5:37 PM:

Jeez, Tony, you must REALLY hate yourself now.

TorranaTony wrote on April 25, 2007 5:42 PM:

I almost hate myself for bring this up, but...

What's to stop a suitably motivated political operative (or protege', or sociopathic copy cat) from conducting a campaign of "apparent" voter fraud to act as a distraction from other electoral dirty tricks? Have someone register fake or ineligible voters, listing them as say, democrats (for the sake of argument), thereby justifying assaults on legitimate voter rights.
Ah, just crazy conspiracy stuff, like breaking into your own election headquarters so you can blame it on your opponent, or sending an identifiably forged document to a non sympathetic member of the press (maybe one who had reported on you when you worked for, say the Nixon campaign)hoping they'll seize on it and embarrass themselves.
Ah, just youthful folly I suppose.

[code word canvas: as in canvas for illegal voters for your opponent (or canvas=the durable fabric of deception)]

TorranaTony wrote on April 25, 2007 5:44 PM:

I almost hate myself for bring this up, but...

What's to stop a suitably motivated political operative (or protege', or sociopathic copy cat) from conducting a campaign of "apparent" voter fraud to act as a distraction from other electoral dirty tricks? Have someone register fake or ineligible voters, listing them as say, democrats (for the sake of argument), thereby justifying assaults on legitimate voter rights.
Ah, just crazy conspiracy stuff, like breaking into your own election headquarters so you can blame it on your opponent, or sending an identifiably forged document to a non sympathetic member of the press (maybe one who had reported on you when you worked for, say the Nixon campaign)hoping they'll seize on it and embarrass themselves.
Ah, just youthful folly I suppose.

[code word canvas: as in canvas for illegal voters for your opponent (or canvas=the durable fabric of deception)]

TorranaTony wrote on April 25, 2007 5:48 PM:

Sorry guys, my refresh button is hyper active, or perhaps I am self loathing, hehe ;)

PLEASE delete the duplicate posts...

nonpartisan wrote on April 25, 2007 6:22 PM:

The U Penn study posted above states, "There were more registered voters than voting-age residents in Alaska and Montana." Those two states are Republican strongholds which voted for Bush. It seems Rove is accusing himself of voter fraud ...

Gregory X wrote on April 25, 2007 6:23 PM:

John Lott is a complete fraud. He makes a living by concocting statistics based on phoney studies that allege voting fraud or that states with concealed carry laws have less gun crime. When asked to provide the data on which his conclusions are based he has been unable to do so. He is a shameless, right-wing fraud.

daCascadian wrote on April 25, 2007 6:24 PM:

>"You take the numbers...If there are more people registered than the census said lived there in 2000, you have more than 100% voting-age population registered.

Problem is this ignores the fact that the population may have increased..."

You are assuming that the Census numbers are correct & accurate enough to make these decisions. Having participated in the 2000 Census as a data gatherer I would say this is a shaky assumption which depends on the specific area involved. There are known errors & while corrections can be made all these sorts of numbers are questionable and need to be used w/quite a bit of caution.

And I`m not addressing the political pressures to "adjust" the numbers to reflect certain agendas. Step lightly in this area.

"There is nothing worse than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept." - Ansel Adam

James Daniel wrote on April 25, 2007 6:33 PM:

It seems to me that what is happening here is just what Mr. Rove wants. Use up our energy talking/fighting about voter fraud so we have less to deal with election engineering (rigged voting machines come to mind).

Ottnott wrote on April 25, 2007 6:54 PM:

Sven's link gives a good nationwide overview of the over-registration issue.

Here's more on over-registration in Pennsylvania in 2000: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/specialreports/2000census/motorvoter.html

Over-registration appears to be an artifact of the combination of easy registration enabled by motor-voter laws and the comparative difficulty and slowness of removing voters from the rolls when they move, die, or otherwise become ineligible.

Clearly, we need a law requiring all deceased persons to notify the voter registrar within 48 hours of death.

eyesonthestreet wrote on April 25, 2007 7:01 PM:

Dear Muckrakers:
Through some happenstance I ended up at a site called the "oregon catalyst" that has a summary of Karl Rove's speech at "Beaverton,Oregon" of April 14th. One of the highlights,

"War on terror
- Rove urged everyone to go and buy the book “Messages to the world” which is a collection of letters from Osama Bin Laden. Rove said reading it is like reading Mein Kampf and it will awake you to the uncompromising brutality of our enemies."

the site is: http://www.oregoncatalyst.com/index.php?/archives/504-Notes-from-the-Karl-Rove-visit.html

Barl Bove wrote on April 25, 2007 7:28 PM:

TorranaTony,

Would you be interested in a job in the Bepublican party? Leave your answer behind the plumbing in yuor bathroom.

James wrote on April 25, 2007 8:05 PM:

"What's to stop a suitably motivated political operative (or protege', or sociopathic copy cat) from conducting a campaign of "apparent" voter fraud to act as a distraction from other electoral dirty tricks?"

Nothing. Rove (and his teacher, Atwater) has a one-trick pony always available for riding. This pony is exemplified by Rove's planting of a listening device in the office of his own candidate so it can be "discovered." Hitler rode this pony when he sent some of his personal thugs over the Polish border dressed in Polish Army uniforms so he could be "surprised" by a provocative border incursion, thereby justifying his long-planned invasion of Poland. Some suspect that Rove rode this pony to the Air Force Reserve records scandal, by creating forgeries of GW Bush's actual service records so that the truth of Bush's service could be discredited through the discovery and revelation of the forgery.

The present "voting fraud" hysteria is the same pony; suppress voting by Democratic constituents (committing fraud) by means of (bogus) voting fraud complaints.

Little imagination is required to apply this one-trick pony to most situations, and though it is easy to recognize, it is devilishly difficult to defend against with today's benighted media

But this pony won't hunt; actual good government requries more, and people will rebel when the real-life results of Bush-Rove bad government get bad enough. We see the beginnings of that process now; the only question is whether we can survive the bad government long enough to educate the voting public with our nearly useless MSM.

We all rely on our American traditions and social conventions to avoid the widespread use of such tactics and the hell on earth they would bring. Many of today's scandals arise from the Bush Administration's (Rove's) repeated violation of many of these traditions. The end result will be very bad for all of us (see "Rome, Rubicon, Decline and Fall").

joe wrote on April 25, 2007 8:56 PM:

Holy crap, Karl Rove is Mary Rosh!

Anonymous wrote on April 25, 2007 9:14 PM:

Ok, I have some questions for all of you who know way more than I do. I’m not sure how to go about doing the research to find any answers. I am not sure if this falls into the area of ‘conspiracy theories’ or not. I’ve been following all of the so-called “voter fraud” cases in relation to the US Attorney scandals, implemented through the Bush administration in D.C.

Here in Texas, in our current legislative session, we have had one of 2 bills approved relating to voter ID and registration, in order to prevent “voter fraud”. (Does that ring a bell?) We are waiting to see if the 2nd bill is approved or not. There is a claim that they are trying to fold the immigration issue in with "voter fraud".

So, my questions are, does Karl Rove’s office or anyone related to the administration have connections to the bills authors - Betty Brown (R-Athens) or Phil King (R-Weatherford) or our top state officials? Are the legislators in Texas getting any pressure to implement “voter fraud” legislation as part of the underlying “voter fraud” cases that Rove has talked about?

The coincidences of the brewing scandals in D.C. and the supposed problems of “voter fraud” that really do not exist and are actually ploys to decrease mostly Democratic voters, is just a little bit odd and makes me wonder if something bigger isn’t going on. After all, Bush, et al. are mostly from Texas and are still friends with many people here. It would not surprise me and if it is the case, it needs to get some publicity that this is going on. Is there a way to find out the answers to these questions? I may be completely off base and not know what I am talking about, but it makes me have lots of questions. Thanks and you all are always great!

Anonymous wrote on April 25, 2007 11:34 PM:

Holy crap, Karl Rove is Mary Rosh!

Posted by: joe

funny.

Tom Betz wrote on April 26, 2007 12:30 AM:

Rove is relying on the thoroughly discredited John Lott for his numbers? The phony gun-law study guy with a long, sordid history of just making shit up?

Click on my name for an entertaining Chicago Magazine story about this clown.

whizkid wrote on April 26, 2007 2:32 AM:

A horse is an ass of corse, of corse, unless its the ass of a horse of corse, just like the ass of corse, of corse, like the ass of President Bush.

colinski wrote on April 26, 2007 5:57 AM:

Just wanted to add a little clarity to the issue of registered voters V. total population.

Having worked on registration drives before I can say that particular precincts show an extremely high number of registered voters. This is hardly a mystery, since those precincts are quite transient and the average voter rarely stays in the precinct for long. On the other hand, these urban precincts (as they typically are) turnout at normal levels (actually below).

Experienced political hands, or people who have worked for county clerks offices, would find speculation based solely on total registrations a little silly -- especially when unaccompanied by actual turnout figures. Moreover, I find Rove's apparent naïveté a little mysterious -- even suspicious.

It's also not hard to figure out how the myth of the Democratic voter fraud developed. Inner city precincts which are mostly rentals, are lower income, and have much higher percentages of Democratically voters & minorities, are the most likely to have this accumulation of registrations.

However, if you look at these precincts on a map you realize these precincts aren't any bigger than other precincts. And anyone familiar with the area would already know these precincts were highly transient.

None of this is even remotely mysterious. If one had merely served in election as an election judge you would understand this (the old registration books were huge). So, the only question is how could this obvious fact be so misunderstood? I guess it made for a real good story. It also shows how ignorant the armchair detective was who found this so-called discrepancy.

paul wrote on April 26, 2007 9:59 AM:

People have already explained how you can have high registration numbers relative to estimated current population.

It's also not surprising that people in mostly poor, mostly minority precincts should cast their ballots for a party other than the one on record claiming they all drive cadillacs. (A friend was a poll watcher on the upper upper east side of manhattan one presidential election long since; of the thousands of votes counted, there were a couple of dozen for the republican candidate...)

LisaPA wrote on April 27, 2007 11:14 AM:

I volunteered as a poll watcher in Philly in the 2004 election and there was crazy high turnout--over 90% in many districts. There were lines at polling places. I assumed it was because folks here really hate Bush.

The only alleged tampering I heard about favored Republicans, but Philly is such a heavily Dem city that if Bush had won, it would obviously have been fraudulent. Good luck trying to convince folks here that the Dems had to rig the vote to win!

rjcnpfdyt qiajsn wrote on May 12, 2007 11:15 PM:

jdqtflns latmidxk ylfwzbcr xozmhdnf thfvbyqe qozen ydmjhebgn

axlfvkud qbcrugadt wrote on May 12, 2007 11:17 PM:

iurslqc rehq clqfe spgvycj utvsnmpc hpeoz lhucp http://www.wjykgqrui.wjdbtr.com

mledkua doghlsnw wrote on May 12, 2007 11:17 PM:

pkryxmaqz haybrw jhvmbrtok gkavisy xqbrkh ekxlugr wflic [URL]http://www.rzqugml.fwatbogps.com[/URL] emdh fxnp