Here you go partisan hackjob....
Because it is almost certain that Christine Gregoire's 130 vote lead in Washington state's governor's race comes from what I have begun to call "distributed vote fraud", I thought I should review the concept. The ideas behind distributed vote fraud are not new, nor are they something that I discovered. I can think of examples that are literally hundreds of years old. What I have contributed is extensive coverage of the problem and, as far as I know, the phrase "distributed vote fraud".
What I mean by the phrase is vote fraud committed by individuals, acting by themselves, not the more traditional vote fraud committed by candidates, party officials, or election workers. I do not know of any good estimates of its extent, but I believe, from a variety of indirect evidence, that distributed vote fraud has made the difference in a number of close elections. I also believe, as I explain below, that it is a growing problem.
Because some find this argument distasteful, I am going to present it in an outline form and ask those who disagree to respond specifically to the points in the outline. In other words, if you think the argument is incorrect, I would appreciate it if you would explain where you think it is incorrect. And I will try to respond to those who make specific arguments.
Not every person who wants to vote is honest.
Dishonest people are more likely to cheat if controls on cheating are weakened.
Controls on vote fraud have been weakened in recent decades, notably by the passage of the 1993 "Motor Voter" Act and by the increase in absentee voting.
Dishonest people are more likely to cheat if they view an election as important.
Voters, especially on the left, viewed the 2000 election as more important than most.
Cheaters are more likely to be Democrats than Republicans.
The first point is, I hope, uncontroversial. The second should be, but you can find a few criminologists who argue that deterrence does not work, that the fear of getting caught and penalized does not deter some from crimes. I have never taken their arguments seriously, but will listen to anyone who has new thoughts on that question.
The third point should also be uncontroversial at least for anyone who has followed the changes in our election laws. It is simply a fact that, in many jurisdictions, prospective voters are not required to prove their citizenship at registration, or their identity at voting.
The fourth point follows from the same kind of argument that the second does; A cheater, I think, is more likely to cheat if the rewards (as the cheater measures them) are large. The fifth point is supported by a variety of evidence, including the surge in voting, polls showing that voters thought this last election extremely important, and the growth in groups such as MoveOn.
The sixth point is undoubtedly the most controversial, and deserves a post of its own, which I will provide in the next day or so. For the moment, let me simply note that Democratic leaders act as if it is true. Both nationally, and in most states, most Republicans want stronger controls against cheating than most Democrats do. In 1993, nearly all of the opposition to the "Motor Voter" Act came from Republicans. President George H. W. Bush had vetoed it earlier; President Bill Clinton signed it.
From those six points above, I draw several conclusions. Distributed vote fraud has increased in the last decade, and was higher in 2004 than in 2000. In most cases, distributed vote fraud benefits Democratic candidates. (Often against other Democratic candidates in primaries, by the way.)
How much distributed vote fraud is there? That's the great question, and one for which I do not have an answer. Neither does anyone else, as far as I know. On the basis of very general arguments, I think that somewhere between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1,000 ballots cast in Washington's last election were fraudulent. That isn't a very high rate, but is enough so that distributed vote fraud may have provided Senator Maria Cantwell's margin in 2000, and almost certainly provided Christine Gregoire's current margin. It may well have provided the margin in some recent Washington legislative races, too.
One of the biggest sources of distributed vote fraud is voting by non-citizens. Those who disagree that it is a major problem often argue that non-citizens would not risk their green cards, if they are here legally, or deportation, if they are not. That risk is minuscule, and most non-citizens would know that. They are unlikely to be detected and very unlikely to be prosecuted if they vote.
and more at....
Sound Politics: A Review Of Distributed Vote Fraud
