Chicago Tribune: Dead voters on rolls, other glitches found in 6 key states

[zimv20]

link

Michel Pillet died in 2002, but his name lives on at the University of New Mexico. He created the school's graduate architecture program and directed it for years.

Pillet's name lives on in another way too. He's still listed as a registered voter in New Mexico, even though election officials are required to purge the names of deceased voters.

A Tribune analysis of voter records suggests that more than 5,000 dead people remained on the rolls on Election Day in New Mexico. The presidential election there was decided by 6,000 votes.

And New Mexico is not alone. The Tribune's review of voter data there and in five other key states--Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Michigan and Minnesota--found widespread flaws in the integrity of voter rolls.

More than 181,000 dead people were listed on the rolls in the six swing states, despite efforts to clean up the country's voting system after the 2000 election.

Thousands more voters were registered to vote in two places, which could have allowed them to cast more than one ballot.

Further, more than 90,000 voters in Ohio cast ballots without a valid presidential choice. Either they decided not to choose a candidate, the machine failed to register their choice, or they mistakenly voted for more than one candidate.

And the FBI is investigating allegations that Republicans in Florida mounted a large-scale campaign to tamper with ballots.

Among the states, Florida led the way with 64,889 registered voters who were also listed in a database of Social Security Administration death claims, the Tribune analysis found.

Next was Michigan, with 50,051.

County-by-county results provided to The Associated Press on Friday indicated Bush's margin of victory in Ohio will be about 119,000 votes, smaller than the unofficial margin of 136,000, mainly because of the addition of provisional ballots.

Ohio's so-called spoilage rate, ballots cast without a discernable vote for president, was lower than Florida's in the 2000 election. But the number of discarded ballots--92,000--represents a significant number, given that Bush's margin of victory was about 119,000 .

Also in Florida, Democratic congressional candidate Jeff Fisher, who was defeated Nov. 2, said he had seen e-mails outlining a Republican plot to steal the presidential election. The plot, he said, involved election workers who created bogus voter registrations. The workers then rigged computers to show those ghost voters had cast ballots for Bush.

The FBI confirmed that Fisher had filed a complaint and that agents were investigating.

this is an ongoing investigation by the chicago tribune. for those not familiar w/ the trib, it is by no means a left-leaning paper. for example, the paper endorsed bush in 2004.

[pseudobrit]

The dead have risen and they're voting Republican!

[skunk]

And the Iraqis are getting this so-called "democracy"? Lucky them!

[pseudobrit]

Originally Posted by skunk

And the Iraqis are getting this so-called "democracy"? Lucky them!

We're increasing the number of potential dead voters everyday, too.

[skunk]

Tried and Tested!

[stubeeef]

[Mr_Ed]

Where's the big story here? Local voter registration is a bureaucracy like any other in government and often moves at a similar pace. So the names of some deceased individuals are ALWAYS on the registration roles, same as they often remain on the tax roles for some time. People sometimes move and register in their new county so technically they are registered to vote in two places for some time.

If they can show that there was actual casting of ballots by deceased individuals or multiple ballots cast by individuals then they would have a story. Unless they can prove these things, any the references to the margin of victory in New Mexico when compared to the number of dead individuals on the roles, along with any other "interesting" but with no other information, meaningless facts mean absolutely ******.

[IJ Reilly]

I agree with Mr_Ed. Unless someone can show fraudulent voting as a result of errors in the roles, this isn't much of a story. But it does remind me of a joke I heard when I lived in Chicago years ago: "Mayor Daily is a great man. He causes the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and the dead to vote."

Of course back then it was actually true (the last bit anyway).

[Mr_Ed]

Originally Posted by IJ Reilly

I agree with Mr_Ed. Unless someone can show fraudulent voting as a result of errors in the roles, this isn't much of a story. But it does remind me of a joke I heard when I lived in Chicago years ago: "Mayor Daily is a great man. He causes the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and the dead to vote."

Of course back then it was actually true (the last bit anyway).

Good one! Yeah, it's not like that type of voter fraud would be "new" or impossible to accomplish. I just get annoyed when I see articles like this in the press where they purposely neglect to state the most basic of facts about how these things work so they can support a "suggestion" that something unusual is going on. I believe the author is doing this in hopes some readers will "take the bait" and run with it. Unfortunately, many do take the bait and make precisely the assumption the author wants them to make. All of this "stolen election" talk in the press with no supporting facts is getting really tiresome.

[zimv20]

the reason i posted this article is because this is one of the first big newspapers to publish something. there've been many other articles on shenanigans, questionable practices, statistically-bizarre results, anecdotal reports on intimidation, fraud, etc.

add it all up, and i believe there _was_ something fishy going on in a number of states.

and there was at least enough evidence in FL for the FBI to start an investigation. that should be at least somewhat significant.

another indication, from OH: Four Elections Employees Suspended Over "Clerical Error"

........

also, even if it is truly the case that there was nothing extra-fishy going on in 2004, it _is_ our democracy we're talking about and i want people being vigilant about it. like we used to be. like Ukraine is now.

[Mr_Ed]

Originally Posted by zimv20

the reason i posted this article is because this is one of the first big newspapers to publish something. there've been many other articles on shenanigans, questionable practices, statistically-bizarre results, anecdotal reports on intimidation, fraud, etc.

add it all up, and i believe there _was_ something fishy going on in a number of states.

and there was at least enough evidence in FL for the FBI to start an investigation. that should be at least somewhat significant.

another indication, from OH: Four Elections Employees Suspended Over "Clerical Error"

........

also, even if it is truly the case that there was nothing extra-fishy going on in 2004, it _is_ our democracy we're talking about and i want people being vigilant about it. like we used to be. like Ukraine is now.

Nothing wrong with being vigilant or with posting the article. My anger is aimed at those in the press producing these articles with no real evidence to support wrongdoing. You have to admit that a statement like:

A Tribune analysis of voter records suggests that more than 5,000 dead people remained on the rolls on Election Day in New Mexico. The presidential election there was decided by 6,000 votes.

is clearly implying that dead people cast ballots without actually saying so. Why else would you even think to compare the number of dead registered voters to the margin of victory? When I see something like that from what is purported to be an established journalistic outlet, it knocks that outlet's reputation down a couple of notches in my book, and they will have a hard time convincing me that they are an "impartial" record of the facts related to the story. When I add to this, the fact that the fail to mention that there is really nothing unusual about having dead people in all kinds of government related roles, or to have some citizens temporarily registered in two places, it makes it pretty clear to me the author has an agenda and that agenda has little to do with "journalism."

Please understand that I am not sitting here trying to convince anyone that there is no possibility of wrongdoing during the election by either side. Any reports of potential fraud SHOULD be investigated, and even by the accounts you cite, are being investigated. The outcome of such investigations I would most definitely want to see reported by the media. I just think we should hold journalists to a much higher standard than we seem to be doing lately with regard to passing off articles driven by personal agendas as legitimate journalism.

[Sun Baked]

The democrats are also a little miffed that James Tobin (Bush's former New England campaign chairman) wasn't indicted until after the election.

[zimv20]

Originally Posted by Mr_Ed

<chomp>

thanks for the clarification.

of course, i too wish there were more meat to the article. i came away from it thinking that the investigation was ongoing. who knows, maybe the editor wanted the journalists (there were several) to write an interim article, to justify the expenditure of the investigation. knowing the trib, that wouldn't surprise me at all.

[MacDawg]

Originally Posted by Mr_Ed

Where's the big story here? Local voter registration is a bureaucracy like any other in government and often moves at a similar pace. So the names of some deceased individuals are ALWAYS on the registration roles, same as they often remain on the tax roles for some time. People sometimes move and register in their new county so technically they are registered to vote in two places for some time.

If they can show that there was actual casting of ballots by deceased individuals or multiple ballots cast by individuals then they would have a story. Unless they can prove these things, any the references to the margin of victory in New Mexico when compared to the number of dead individuals on the roles, along with any other "interesting" but with no other information, meaningless facts mean absolutely ******.

I agree Mr. Ed, no evidence produced to suggest that such irregularities resulted in true voter fraud.

And further, what would indicate that 100% of this is due to Republican conspiracy? X number of votes margin of victory, Y number of spoilage, undetermined, etc. What indication is there that says that 100% of those were Kerry votes? Seems to me that in all of these arguments that the burden rests on Bush supporters and none on Kerry/Gore supporters. Are Kerry/Gore supporters any more above reproach in trying to steal an election?

The argument I usually hear is that surely Bush supporters stole the election because no moron would really vote for Bush.

[zimv20]

Originally Posted by MacDawg

The argument I usually hear is that surely Bush supporters stole the election because no moron would really vote for Bush.

are you hearing that argument here?

read some of the stuff by greg palast and bev harris. either they're completely full of crap, or GOP-benefiting irregularities have become the norm.

[MacDawg]

Originally Posted by zimv20

are you hearing that argument here?

read some of the stuff by greg palast and bev harris. either they're completely full of crap, or GOP-benefiting irregularities have become the norm.

No, sorry if it appeared I was implying that was what this thread was saying. That is what I have heard from other places.

I think both sides probably have their over active zealots, and both sides probably are guilty of improprieties throughout history and even the most recent elections. For either side to cry foul and imply they are squeeky clean is probably unfortunate.

I am not really 'loyal' to either party, insofar as I realize that all are at the core politicians.

Woof, Woof - Dawg

[Xtremehkr]

It just makes me think of the Ukraine, and how voting irregularities there helped the election go to a person who was favorable to this country and not Russia.

At least the people the Ukraine are not so apathetic about who leads them.

[MacDawg]

Originally Posted by Xtremehkr

It just makes me think of the Ukraine, and how voting irregularities there helped the election go to a person who was favorable to this country and not Russia.

At least the people the Ukraine are not so apathetic about who leads them.

I could be wrong, but I don't think it is "the" Ukraine, any more than it is "the" Romania, or "the" England. It is often referred to that way, but my understanding is that it is technically just "Ukraine".

Woof, Woof - Dawg

[Xtremehkr]