So here’s the setup:

Outside a local Safeway store in El Paso County, Colorado, which includes the city Colorado Springs, a young woman stands asking shoppers if they’d like to register to vote. While that may seem benign enough, the woman prefaces her “voter registration” with a simple question:

“Would you vote for Romney or Obama?”

When confronted about the question, the young woman admitted she was only registering voters for a particular party, because she was “out here in support of Romney, actually.” Under questioning, the young woman went on to indicate she was working for the county clerk’s office, the County Clerk of El Paso County being Wayne W. Williams, a Republican who was formerly the head of the El Paso County Republican Party. However, it turns out the woman was not actually working for the county clerk; she was in the employ of Strategic Allied Consulting, a Republican campaign firm with a rather sordid history of election shenanigans.

Watch the video for yourself:

It’s also being reported that the young woman in the video was a contract worker for Strategic Allied Consulting, a company owned by Nathan Sproul,a Republican operative whose other company, Lincoln Strategies, has a long history of voter suppression efforts.

– In Oregon and Nevada, Lincoln Strategies — then known as Sproul and Associates — was investigated for destroying Democratic voter registration forms. The Bush-Cheney 2004 presidential campaign paid Sproul $7.4 million for campaign work. [CNN, 10/14/04; KGW News, 10/13/04; East Valley Tribune, 09/07/06]

– In Nevada, people who registered as Democrats with Lincoln Strategies — then known as Sproul and Associates — found their names absent from the voter registration rolls. [Reno Gazette-Journal, 10/29/04]

– During the 2006 midterm elections, Wal-Mart banned Lincoln Strategies for partisan voter registration efforts in Tennessee. The Republican National Committee had hired the firm. [Associated Press, 08/24/06]

– In Arizona, Lincoln Strategies employed a variety of deceptive tactics — including systematically lying about the bill — to push a ballot initiative to eviscerate the state’s clean elections law. [Salon, 10/21/04]

– Lincoln Strategies, then employed by the Republican Party, was behind efforts to place Ralph Nader on the ballot in states such as Arizona. [American Prospect, 06/25/04]

It’s important to note Nathan Sproul has received over $70,000 from the campaign of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney for “field consulting,” while his company Strategic Allied Consulting has been paid $3.1 million by the Republican National Committee. Strategic Allied Consulting has come under investigation in Florida after officials in at least 10 counties have identified suspicious and possibly fraudulent voter registration forms turned in by Strategic Allied Consulting.

So the next time you hear some Republican/conservative screaming about vote fraud, just remember that their side is guilty as hell when it comes to committing vote fraud in some form or another.

Tagged with:

41 Responses to VIDEO: Romney supporter will only register Republicans to vote

  1. Gareth says:

    In every Presidential election since 2004 Republicans have hired Nathan Sproul as part of their voter suppression effort. When Sproul is caught committing fraud the Republicans then act all shocked and dismayed, while Sproul blames it all on a few rogue individuals who disappear from the state they were working in. The real question is why hasn’t this guy been prosecuted? Year after year he organizes election fraud in multiple states, which must be a violation of some Federal statue and yet he gets a pass. I can understand why the Bush Justice Department wouldn’t go after him but why hasn’t Eric Holder?

    This crap has been going on for so long it’s pathetic:

    “Substitute teacher Adam Banse wanted a summer job with flexible hours, so he signed up to knock on doors in suburban Minneapolis and register people to vote. He quit after two hours. “They said if you bring back a bunch of Democratic cards, you’ll be fired,” Banse contends. “At that point, I said, ‘Whoa. Something’s wrong here.'”

    He isn’t alone. In several battleground states across the country, a consulting firm funded by the Republican National Committee has been accused of deceiving would-be voters and destroying Democratic voter registration cards.”

  2. Migosh says:

    Was Sproul involved in Wisconsin, where we saw Repubs boasting that they were tearing up Walker recall petitions? Was that happening to voter registrations, too?

  3. jwayne says:

    where is the fraud?

    • Jake formerly of the LP says:

      Fraud is defined as misrepresenting who you are and who you work for, which this GOP puppet was clearly doing. Also destroying registrations that were acquired and given in good faith is fraudelent. Both are criminal offenses in addition to being completely unethical.

      But given that the GOP is America’s largest organized crime synidcate, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that they try to cheat here. If it was a fair fight with media truly treating them fairly and calling them out for their obvious corruption and dishonesty, these GOP losers and their failed policies would never have a chance.

      Shout it loud the last 5 weeks, and make sure the media can’t be allowed to let it drop.

      • forgotmyscreenname says:

        If only we could think of a widespread voter registration scandal that the media was “allowed to let drop” on the liberal side of thing. So squeaky clean you are that I am sure it never ever happened… oh wait… how about… ACORN in previous elections. Ring a bell? That must put the Democrats right up there for largest organized crime syndicate. I am sure your memory just failed you.

        • Jake formerly of the LP says:

          Yes, because ACORN was a form of the Democratic Party and was willfully destroying voter registrations of people they didn’t like.

          Oh wait, NONE OF THAT WAS THE CASE. Sproul IS DOING THE GOP’S BIDDING and having people claim they are something they are not.

          Try again, kiddo, ACORN was nowhere near as illegal and nefarious as this, nor was it anywhere close to being up the food chain like this GOP election fraud is.

          You really have nothing, so if you have an ounce of self-respect, you’ll shut it and move on to your next useless topic.

  4. forgotmyscreenname says:

    I am against anyone committing voter fraud. The difference is that I support legislation to curb voter fraud, and you don’t.

    However some of the things you listed don’t constitute fraud: getting Nader on the ballot? Nothing illegal about that. Partisan voter registration? Nothing wrong their either. In fact, Democrats have mastered that more than Republicans.

  5. MD says:

    There’s a difference between voter fraud, a fictional problem manufactured by Republicans, and election fraud, which Nathan Sproul seems to be committing.


    • forgotmyscreenname says:

      Fictional, really? You don’t believe it happens? The evidence and convictions prove you wrong.

      • Yes, because there’s been tens of thousands of convictions to bolster your assertion, and you’d be willing to provide links to prove it.

        • forgotmyscreenname says:

          Why does there need to be tens of thousands of convictions? It takes ONE fraudulent vote to invalidate MY vote. That disenfranchises ME. That is a CRIME. What don’t you get about that?

          As documented by Milwaukee County and the MJS extensive investigations regarding the 2004 presidential election, there were hundreds of felons who voted illegally among many other discrepancies in that county alone. Also see the numerous convictions by the Attorney General in the last few years. I know you like to ignore the fact that any voter fraud occurs, but facts are facts.

          And that’s only the easy cases that can be discovered and proven. Since less than half the population votes, there’s absolutely no way right now to tell if you walk in to vote under someone else’s name that you know will not vote that day. If only there was an easy way to prove you are who you say you are… like a piece of plastic with your name and picture on it.

          • Not one of the cases of fraudulant voting that our Attorney General van Hollen has found in the last several major election cycles would have been prevented by the voter id laws enacted across the country or here in WI.

            “…there’s absolutely no way right now to tell if you walk in to vote under someone else’s name that you know will not vote that day.” There have been absolutely no cases of this being reported in WI…and I imagine most of those who don’t vote are also those who are not registered…

            And voter Id wouldn’t prevent felons from voting. Nor would voter ID prevent someone from moving and voting at both their old and new addresses. Nor would voter ID prevent someone from submitting an absentee ballot and then voting in person. Those are the kinds of convictions that the AG got. Put into place something that would prevent that kind of stuff? Be my guest.

          • Tell it to the state Supreme Court, FMSN. You guys aren’t going to get away with your stinking, un-American voter suppression effort this election cycle.

            • forgotmyscreenname says:

              What about all the people who are disenfranchised because they have to somehow get to the polling place? Absentee ballot? That kind of seems like a hassle to do. See, you actually have to roll out of bed and make an effort. And apparently that is discriminatory.

              You know if it voter suppression, how is it that only you think Democrat voters will be suppressed? I always hear your argument about how African Americans are somehow incapable of getting an ID (which seems to be like a racist argument to begin with). But what about Asians? Are they disenfranchised too or just forgotten by your lame argument?

  6. Other Side says:

    The evidence and convictions prove you wrong.

    Stop it. LMAO. It hurts.

  7. Gareth says:

    Rob Vos’s wife committed voter fraud and the Republicans shrug if off. What’s up with that?

    • forgotmyscreenname says:

      First you guys say voter fraud doesn’t exist and then you site this case. Make up your mind. Either there are cases of voter fraud or there aren’t.

      Gareth, if you are so concerned about this case, talk to Other Side when he’s done laughing. Zach’s only interested if it happened tens of thousands of times, so good luck there.

    • forgotmyscreenname says:

      First you guys say voter fraud doesn’t exist and then you cite this case. Make up your mind. Either there are cases of voter fraud or there aren’t.

      Gareth, if you are so concerned about this case, talk to Other Side when he’s done laughing. Zach’s only interested if it happened tens of thousands of times, so good luck there.

      • FMSN. I am totally against voter fraud. But lets prevent the type of voter fraud that’s proven to exist. AND, Ms. Vos’ issue wouldn’t have been prevented by voter id either.

  8. Duane12 says:

    We all know that the GOP policies such as “trickling down” on the middle class is a massive fraud upon the public as is their obstructionism in Congress the past four years.

    So I am not surprised by their recently discovered voter registration fraud.

    But the GOP ongoing fraud and hypocrisy at both the national and state level can be tiresome at times, so I turn to music for relaxation. I suggest an old James Taylor favorite:

  9. PJ says:


    That you would deflect to ACORN indicates that you are not so outraged as you pretend to be. Voter fraud and election fraud are the modus operandi of the GOP. ACORN was its own entity and not part of a decades long intentional voter suppression effort as is the case with the GOP. I find it peculiar for you to be so vehemently concerned only for your own vote to be metaphorically stolen rather than for you to be concerned about voter suppression as it pertains to the common weal. You find no outrage in disenfrachisement; you express no fury over millions of American citizens whose vote is not metaphorically, but quite literally stolen by elected officials.

    If you possessed authentic concern for election integrity would you not be denouncing Nathan Sproul and all his fraudulent incarnations as much if not more than you do Acorn? Sproul’s efforts, by way of comparison far outrank Acorn’s in terms of scale and egregiousness. But, that isn’t what you are attempting to do when you insert Acorn into the discussion. Your intention is obfuscation and deflection, you attempt to minimize the severity of the GOP’s vile intent. Nor do you acknowledge that voter suppression bills, the purging of voter rolls and the suite of voter suppression laws enacted by GOP lawmakers do not address the problem of voter impersonation or for that matter registration fraud.

    Now for the reality check:
    The number of legitimate cases of voter fraud is so minute, it cannot even be considered statistically significant in any context, but especially compared to the numbers of people disenfranchised by GOP voter suppression efforts to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters – which is statistically significant – so significant that those efforts could tip an election. 13 credible cases of impersonation fraud were found between 2000 and 2010 – nationwide. Yet, in excess of 5 million people (and that is a conservative estimate, pardon the pun) would be disenfranchised by GOP voter suppression laws. But somehow those numbers don’t infuriate you. If voter impersonation does occur with statistical significance you might be able to make the leap you are making by saying your vote has been stolen. Without statistical significance you cannot. Your outrage is feigned and your point moot.

    Now, if only you applied your standard of numerical significance to a suite of other issues. Perhaps if you did, your screed might convince one that you aren’t actually being intellectually dishonest. Like say the numerical significance of gun deaths in the United States or the number of homeless people in this country or the the numbers of people living in poverty. By your standard, one gun death is more than enough to fly into action by embracing steep restrictions on gun ownership. And if some people are prevented from owning guns or restricted in how they wield firearms in order to prevent that one gun death, that is an acceptable societal price to pay is it not? Just as restricting millions of voters from voting to prevent those 13 voter impersonation events from ever happening again?

    Try as you may with your deflection efforts that haven’t anything at all to do with the matter at hand, which is: The inherent and systemic fraudulence of the Republican Party. Truth will out and out it is. Republican political strategy is dirty, dishonest, abhorrent, and UnAmerican. The more you attempt to draw pathetic false equivalencies, the more clearly you confirm that Conservatism is dastardly, and Conservatism is dangerous to genuine republicanism and democracy.

  10. “By your standard, one gun death is more than enough to fly into action by embracing steep restrictions on gun ownership. And if some people are prevented from owning guns or restricted in how they wield firearms in order to prevent that one gun death, that is an acceptable societal price to pay is it not? Just as restricting millions of voters from voting to prevent those 13 voter impersonation events from ever happening again?”

    A point I tried to make a while ago ~ but never as eloquently!

    • forgotmyscreenname says:

      A more accurate analogy would be this: gun deaths might warrant gun permits, waiting periods, and background checks (identification required!). Now we already have all of those things, even though gun ownership is also a constitutional right. By your standard, we shouldn’t need any of those things and just trust people at their word. If it’s good for one right, why not the other?

      There is no way MILLIONS of voters would be restricted from voting. There are plenty of protections and exemptions to assure that (free IDs among others). Where do you get there are only 13 instances? There have been hundreds. And each one of them dilutes your and my valid vote.

      • PJ says:


        Crawford vs. Marion County Election Board. Read it. None of the briefs presented could cite one solitary example of voter impersonation which could be prevented by pollsite photo id restrictions. The bulk of “fraud” as it pertained to voter impersonation, under scrutiny, are revealed to be cases of misinformation and clerical error. Even George W. Bush’s DOJ determined voter impersonation was neither a problem or a threat to election integrity.

        The Brennan Center for Justice. Check it out. In excess of 5 million voters could be disenfranchised by Conservative-led efforts at voter restrictions.

        Read the Myth of Voter Fraud by Lorraine Minnite. Minnite examined every single voter fraud case from 1996-2005.

        The New York Times 2007 study found that in the preceding five years the majority of people convicted of voter fraud were wrongfully convicted and NYT found no evidence of organized voter impersonation fraud.

        Go to the American Center for Voting Rights and ponder their 2005 study of the 2004 elections. Once again, upon investigation the cases of alleged fraud were found to be either patently false, the result of clerical errors, and what was found could only be regarded as potentially fraudulent at best.

        Go to the FBI and examine their investigations of voter fraud.

        Go to the Department of Justice and examine their investigations of voter fraud.

        Go to the Election Assistance Commission and examine their analyses of voter fraud.

        Read the amicus briefs of litigated voter id cases.

        Research voter caging schemes – who is behind them and which voters are affected? It isn’t Democratic operatives who are behind them, but it is Democratic voters whose votes are stolen by these efforts.

        How much do you really know about ACORN? Did the plaintiffs win their civil court lawsuit that claimed Republican votes were diluted by falsified registrations? Who is Patrick Rogers and what does he have to do with voter fraud? Why don’t you discuss ACORN, FMSN? Don’t just whip it out there – discuss it. How much does ACORN really tell us about voter fraud? It tells us a lot. It tells us a lot about the organized Republican voter suppression strategy. It tells us more about the institutionalized corruption of Conservatism than it does about ACORN. You really aren’t able to engage ACORN in that level of depth are you?

        There is no dearth of sources for you to research. Where did I find the number of 13 cases of voter impersonation? I counted. I used my brain to calculate. Yet, I’m fairly certain you could quite easily type in “13 cases of voter impersonation fraud” and find at least one source to verify that number. As a matter of fact, I did. And there are. Perhaps rather than spoon feeding you a link, since you are too intellectually lazy to take responsibility for your own opinions, the best thing I can do for you is to teach you how to think – how very presumptuous and elitist of me to suggest it. And I do boldly suggest it. Because I’m also fairly certain that you are too much of a coward to challenge your own convictions. Your position is so smothered in cowardice that I am willing to bet my bottom dollar that you will not thoroughly examine the plethora of sources available to counter your assertions about voter fraud. I’m extremely confident that you are incapable of evaluating sources – what constitutes a good source and what constitutes a spurious or questionable source. I’m also immensely assured in the idea that you will never read anything that doesn’t viscerally confirm what you think you know.

        Your attitude is propaganda-induced hysteria. You have yet to express any outrage at the organized efforts of the Republican Party to fraudulently steal elections. George W. Bush won both his terms only through election tampering – the stealing of votes. That is a matter of public record. His first term: When the recount in Florida was actually tallied, following the Supreme Court injustice scandal – Gore won Florida. Bush’s second term – Ohio Diebold machines rigged to flip Kerry votes to Bush. If an election is swayed in favor of a Republican candidate – well then, that’s okay by you, I guess.

        If you were so genuinely concerned about election integrity you’d immediately abandon the Conservative fold because that is where election integrity is most compromised. That you refuse to consider election integrity with any reasonability indicates that you are incapable of reasonably considering the matter of election integrity other than from a perspective so skewed that you can only ever come to a single conclusion – your mind is mired by “True the Vote” propaganda. Conservative voter restrictions favor Conservative electoral outcomes. My vote is more likely to be stolen from a diebold machine than yours is by either a misinformed or malevolent voter. You’re not really too concerned about my vote, though, are you, FMSN? You don’t point to nor admonish electoral malfeasance when Conservatives illegally and unethically gain advantage, as in the case with Diebold or Sproul. You display precisely the reaction that Conservative propaganda is intended to produce. Yours is a disinformed mind incapable of rational examination. You will simply not BELIEVE that Conservative voter legislation disproportionately disadvantages likely Democratic voters. That you will not is indicative of a slanted mind unconcerned with election integrity itself.

      • PJ says:

        Despite how very lamed your level of analysis appears to be, I do empathize with your standard for election integrity. While you’ve made it quite plain for all to see that empiricism and evidence will not dissuade you from your disinformed beliefs, I’d go as far as saying you needn’t even accept the FACT that in excess of 5 million people could potentially be disenfranchised by voter id laws. The very idea that you would condone the disenfranchisement of one eligible voter in order to prevent potential fraud is UnDemocratic, UnAmerican, and Tyrannical. That is one vote too many. If one vote is stolen as a result of voter id laws, then what has come to pass is governmental tyranny.

        Is your vote stolen, FMSN, if one Democratic vote is stolen by voter id laws, the purging of voter roles, early voting restrictions or any legislative restriction that could be placed on the voting public? Yes. Your vote is already stolen before it has even been cast.

        Or is your answer really no, because it was a Democratic vote stolen, not a Republican one?

        Is your vote stolen, FMSN, if one eligible voter regardless of political affiliation is purged from the voter rolls in Florida though you cast your eligible vote in Wisconsin? Yes, your vote is already stolen before it has even been cast.

        Or is your answer really no, because an eligible voter losing a vote in Florida doesn’t erase your vote here in Wisconsin?

        Is your vote stolen, FMSN, when a WWII veteran is incorrectly informed he is not a citizen and to steer clear of the voting booth on election day? Yes. Your vote is already stolen before it has even been cast.

        Or is your answer really no, because your vote is discretely your own and that WWII vet’s vote is discretely his own?

        Again, I do empathize with your standard to some degree. After all, nearly all verifiable election and voter malfeasance is committed by the Republican Party and Conservative operatives who would seek to gain an advantage for the Republican Party at the polls. If there were some way to legislatively curb Republican malfeasance, I’d be all for it. Sadly, there may not be. Voter id won’t resolve Republican and Conservative immorality, but voter id confirms it.

        I can’t help but bring to your attention Thomas Paine, who was all too aware of the potential for one class or one faction excluding the voting rights of another. Whenever that effort at restriction took place as Paine says, “…it is a question of force…”

        “Who is he that would exclude another? That other has a right to exclude him.”

        “It is always to be taken for granted, that those who oppose an equality of rights never mean the exclusion should take place on themselves.”

        How very prescient he was. Voter id is an arbitrary device devised by narrow Conservative interests. Not the interests of the voting public in its entirety. That’s the ugly, naked truth. It is a measure to secure unfair advantage by disenfranchising likely Democratic voters.

        As to the attempt at reframing your standard to gun control: As you point out, we already have in place those gun permits, waiting periods and background checks. These measures don’t prevent gun deaths. If even one gun death occurs are we not duty bound to prevent another? If the measures in place do not resolve one gun death we must then find measures that will. As you so vehemently suggest for impersonation fraud, by God we have to do something about this! It is not by my standard (which is your standard by the way), that we wouldn’t need those existing gun control measures. By my standard (which is your standard by the way), just one gun death is reason enough to crack down hard on those existing measures – more stringent rules and newer more effective standards to apply those rules at the very least. But given your standard, it isn’t just one death, it is many thousands of deaths under consideration; our vigilance, our persistence, and the severity of our solutions must match the numerical significance of gun deaths in the United States. Just tightening up on existing measures isn’t the level of force we need to match the number of deaths caused by guns.

        As to Constitutional rights. Voting is certainly an undisputed right, despite Conservative efforts to intentionally deny those rights to likely Democratic voters. But the right to bear arms is a completely different animal. Even the so-called and inaccurately characterized strict “constructionists” conceded that the Constitution was, by necessity of the times, to be amended and fitted to the context of the day. The Bill of Rights included the right to bear arms for a specific purpose within a specific context. Like every other sphere of the Constitution, it was written with limitations. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to prevent the establishment of a permanent military. That context – the purpose for the right to bear arms – is non-existent. The context, for the purpose, has changed. We do have a new context for the right to bear arms: not one gun death, but thousands upon thousands of gun deaths. By my standard (which is your standard by the way), just one gun death is enough to repeal the 2nd amendment. Such a move wouldn’t impact the entire populace, right? Just gun owners.

        You mustn’t try so hard at turning tables, FMSN. You’ll get yourself all dizzy. We are still talking about your standard, you own it, it is yours. You’ve hit on another interesting point about your standard. We don’t need regulatory measures if we can just trust people at their word. If we could just trust gun owners not to kill other people. If we could just trust voters not to impersonate other people. If regulatory measures are necessary to secure one right and to ensure honesty, why wouldn’t a comparable set of identification measures be necessary to ensure honesty and to secure that right too? So, are you suggesting the two are not comparable? It sure looks that way. And, you know, I agree with you because gun ownership is not a right. It is an outmoded right that should be repealed. Unless, of course, you want to disband the military. Then gun ownership would be Constitutional. As it stands, gun ownership is UnConstitutional. Either way, however, existing gun control measures don’t stop gun deaths. The question, for you, FMSN, is do you so severely tighten up on gun control measures that potentially prevent American citizens from acquiring a gun or certain extremely lethal categories of guns or do you just let those gun deaths stand as par for the course if we continue to consider gun ownership a Constitutionally protected right? To your mind there’s something different about violent death and diluting a vote? We must treat these outcomes differently. Or are you saying they’re the same? Death: Dilution. Same severity, warranting same level of governmental intervention? Which outrages you more? Death or dilution? Or is your outrage equally distributed between the two? You feel no more outrage at death than you do dilution?

        We don’t need new, oppressive voter id laws for the very reason gun control advocates argue we don’t need more restrictive laws on owning or carrying a gun – because we already have identification measures in place. We ALREADY HAVE nationwide identification measures in place for voter registration. These may vary from state to state, but every state requires some sort of identification in order to register to vote don’t they? What if one doesn’t? Your vote will be diluted, FMSN. I know, panic must be setting in…. You must be able to control how other states handle their elections in order to ensure your vote isn’t dissolved in fraudulence. But how to do it? Do you really think voter id is enough? That last bit you probably wouldn’t recognize – it’s called sarcasm. Back to your standard. Any voter id requirements at the polls must be considered oppressive and unnecessary and redundant because we already have voter identification measures for registering to vote…. like we have requirements for gun ownership. We don’t need more oppressive regulations to inhibit voting…. unless inhibiting voting is the purpose for voter id….

        How will more regulations and restrictions prevent that one impersonation case? How is a coercive government regulating its own citizenry going to eliminate impersonation fraud? Your answer to the hysterical fear of “vote dilution” is for the government to intrude most heavy-handedly into our lives. So, what is your solution if there is still one voter impersonation case to be found after voter id laws go into effect? Or voter purges go into effect? Or early voting is disallowed? If there is one case of voter impersonation fraud to be found, won’t you have to rethink, quite possibly entirely scrap any and all voter restriction measures? If one case of voter impersonation fraud is to be found after any of these measures go into effect should they not all be repealed because we will know that they do not work? If one case of voter impersonation fraud occurs, we will know, without question, without doubt, that voter id laws do not do what they were intended to do. Because one case of voter dilution is one case too many.

        Voter dilution. Diluting votes. How the idea fills you with such rightful indignation. But here in this video is a confirmed case of the dilution of Democratic votes, a case which cannot be resolved with voter id. But you’re not outraged by it. I think, FMSN, the whole angle of voter dilution is a bit unsavory and a bit – shall we say – suspect. I mean, what really does dilution connote? Synonyms for it – “doctor” “water-down” “debase” “weaken” “adulterate”- I rather fancy this one: deliquesce. There are many more, of course, but none of them connote what you so ardently fear – “steal.” Why don’t you clue us all in on your voter dilution dog whistle, FMSN? Diluting a vote isn’t stealing a vote. There’s no shade of meaning for “dilute” to denote “steal.” What is it that diluting the vote really means?

        • forgotmyscreenname says:

          If 5 million people really can’t get an ID, as you claim, then we have a bigger problem of 5 million people who can’t function in society. Because that means they have no job (not a legal one anyway) or do much else. I hope they are not collecting any government benefits without an ID. Who knows how they buy cigarettes, alcohol, rent a movie, cash a check, and on and on.

          I just don’t understand — if the honor system is good enough for the sacred act of voting, why don’t we go by the honor system for buying cigarettes and alcohol? Surely no one would try to scam the system. Why are 50+ year olds forced to show ID for those things when they are clearly over the age of 18 and 21.

          • Other Side says:

            Because society has determined that it is unwise for minors to have unfettered access to alcohol and cigarettes. btw: Neither is a right enshrined in the Constitution. Voting is.

            50+ year olds are not forced to show ID. That is a business decision.

            Among those 5 million you denigrate are the disabled and the elderly.

            • forgotmyscreenname says:

              You are exactly right — voting is enshrined in our Constitution, which is why it deserves to be protected.

              What kind of “business decision” would make grandmas show ID to buy alcohol, unless that business was so in fear of the government coming down on them?

              I didn’t denigrate your supposed 5 million people. What I am saying is that it’s got to be a problem for them to function in society if they have no way to identify themselves. Surely the disabled and elderly are receiving some kind of government benefits — they are doing that without ID? How do they pick up their prescriptions or cash their SS checks? Furthermore, the ID law made provisions to accomodate those folks. Thank you, have a good day.

      • If you read any of this…I was quoting PJ…but lets ask the same question…where do you get hundreds…and where are the WI problems that photo ID will prevent?

      • FMSN – my question is why the right is more willing to protect and extend the Second Amendment over all others?

        • forgotmyscreenname says:

          I reject your premise. I believe in upholding all of the constitution. But as I said above, we already accept the premise of having to show ID to buy a gun, having to get a gun permit, waiting period, etc. Why not the same to cast a vote? Right to vote / right to bear arms. So if the honor system is good for voting, why not to buy a gun too?

  11. Other Side says:

    I have seen the figure related above but cannot remember where. Here is one that was produced by a Republican group stating there had been 311 cases of voter fraud over ten years … nationwide.

    Nationwide! And most of those wound up being unintentional.

    Still LMAO.

  12. Other Side says:

    And this from a Republican strategist who was chief strategist for McCain and Jon Huntsman. Voter fraud is bull!

    Oh, it hurts!

  13. PJ says:


    You’ve hit the nail on the head. You just don’t understand. You just don’t get it. What I don’t understand is why you don’t even try.

    At play in this debate are a number of assumptions, some of which you’ve touched on: the honor system being one. I’d point out a dichotomy, a foundational query: how sacred does one truly regard voting? I deem voting precious, sacred, the highest duty (and honor) a citizen can undertake. Given the matter at hand we’re faced with two views of how we, as a society, regard voting:

    One view is (and this is my view) it is such a precious liberty, any barrier to that liberty is tyrannical because it inhibits a free society.

    The second view is that we must regulate and we must determine who votes and who doesn’t vote in order to ensure the integrity of elections. I do get the appeal with this argument. I really do. But a government that goes this route is a coercive government, not one that ensures liberty. More to the point: For years and years Conservative strategists have openly admitted that their electoral prospects increase when election turnout is lower. Part of their strategy is to instill deep pessimism and distrust of government to discourage voter participation. Nothing could be more iniquitous and filthy than consciously depressing the vote for political gain. Nothing could be more threatening to a free society. Furthermore, there’s an underlying value system lurking in that strategy – that there are sectors of people who are undeserving of suffrage, who quite literally should never be allowed to vote by virtue of their station in life – the poor and those with the least amount of political power. This is not my interpretation, though a sliver of attentiveness wouldn’t be difficult to assess such a position. Once again, this attitude is the stated value system by the cynical, divisive Right Wing. My position with respect to this position is Thomas Paine’s – these people who seek to disenfranchise others are deserving of disenfranchisement themselves. Paine’s scheme was temporary. I’d make that disenfranchisement permanent because that is how highly I regard the sacred trust of voting.

    The question is do we, as a free society, make it easier to vote or do we make it more difficult to vote? Historically, those who favor difficulty don’t do so with honorable intentions nor are the barriers constructed erected to enhance democracy and republicanism. Barriers to participation in government only weakens a republic and establishes another mechanism for perpetual weakness – inequality. The question: Do we, as a free society, make it easier or more difficult to vote? The answer is we make it easier. We are no longer a free society when we inhibit the vote. The moment any citizen must jump through a hoop or a series of hoops to exercise the right to vote we have ceased being a free society.

    As for your remark concerning an underlying problem evidenced by 5 million people not having identification, a number of thoughts:

    First, a society peopled by individuals with differing abilities is a realistic condition, not necessarily problematic. It is a state of being to recognize, not judgmentally denigrate but to accommodate – if we were a free society. Perhaps if we tattooed every eligible voter with a bar code we might be able to achieve the state you desire. That would unequivocally ensure election integrity wouldn’t it?

    Second, believe it or not, it is because many people have a job, in fact multiple jobs, which prevents them, in the real world, from acquiring identification. Your cynicism with respect to functioning in society belies the problem. For the working class poor and the unemployed poor transportation is a real barrier. A real barrier. You may be flippant about it if your freedom isn’t impaired because you possess a car that runs well and is always filled with gas, but that level of existence is a luxury, not a baseline. You expect people to function at some idealized, hypothetical level. That’s the first problem. Second, you assume incorrectly that we have a societal structure which supports everyone functioning at that same idealized, hypothetical level. We do not have a free society to affirm that idyllic view.

    Third, You assume that those who can’t function in society at your idealized level exist in the criminal underworld. There is a criminal underworld in America and there are also large swaths of people in this country who exist “under the radar” in varying degrees. These are all matters of genuine concern, but what you do, what Conservatives do in general (to be fair Conservative Democrats do it too) is conflate all those people – working class poor, the unemployed, elements of the criminal underground, and those under the radar in varying degrees – into one amorphous mass of “degenerates” who are all scammers. That’s not so. First, they’re all individuals with individual circumstances. There was a time in this country when individualism mattered. Sadly, that day has ended. At any rate, some of those individuals do scam. That is so. But the question we should be asking is why are they scamming? You assume they’re scammers because they’re all part of a naturally degenerate mass of “takers.” By adopting that attitude, our discourse and our problem solving can never adequately address the many situations these Americans find themselves in – some of their own doing and some not. I suspect your resolution is Romney’s (also Obama’s by the way) – “free” enterprise and the “free market.” The “free” market isn’t the solution. It’s the problem.

    As to their own doing and “personal responsibility” – You immorally dismiss those “losers” who have “failed” in our highly toxic competitive system; I’d say if you truly value that system then you need to accept these “losers” and not judge them for “losing.” If you want a highly toxic competitive system then you’re going to get more losers than winners. Somehow Conservative ideology never accounts for that. And to be fair – again – that’s a bipartisan flaw.

    Of course there are scammers among the poor. But you find penny-ante scammers struggling for existence somehow more egregious than scammers at the opposite extreme. Nor do you recognize the opposite extreme for what it is – an organized enterprise of government largesse tapping more benefits than the poor could ever hope to receive; an enterprise which will ultimately scam you and everyone else out of our fundamental liberties and freedoms; and a system that drives everyone down further into that “underclass” underworld. Given your scenario, once the majority of Americans are in the dregs, they won’t even have access to the polls to effect policy to change the course of their lives.

    Once your perceptions and your assumptions exit the black-and-white world you’ve confined them in, maybe then your “critique” of those “government assisted” individuals will merit attention. Until then your “critique” does not because you don’t offer “critique.” Critique requires complex thought, which you are clearly not engaging in. You are engaging in divisive, punitive thought, the kind of though that is corrosive to our society and to our government.

    In my next comment, a commentary on your attitude toward those in need.

  14. PJ says:


    In 1786 Thomas Jefferson wrote an extraordinarily lengthy letter to Maria Cosway entitled “A Dialogue between My Head and my Heart.” In it he grappled with a great many philosophical questions pertaining to his personal life, his station in life, and his role as one of many in the Revolutionary conscience. Well, that’s my take on it anyway.

    I’m transcribing one section of it for your consideration. I was only going to excerpt one bit of that section, but I decided upon two because the two bits don’t address identical strains of the same issue. In other words, many lessons inhabit the single theme. I excerpt these because whenever I encounter the contempt and disdain Conservatives express for those existing on public assistance I think of the following passage and how far Conservatives have strayed from any vestiges of American morality.

    The Weary Soldier and the Begging Woman

    “I know, indeed, that you pretend authority to the sovereign control of our conduct in all its parts; and a respect for your grave saws and maxims, a desire to do what is right, has sometime induced me to conform to your counsels. A few facts, however, which I can readily call to your memory, will suffice to prove to you that nature has not organized you for our moral direction. When the poor, wearied soldier whom we overtook at Chickahominy, with his pack on his back, begged us to let him get up behind our chariot, you began to calculate that the road was full of soldiers, and that if all should be taken up, our horses would fail in their journey. We drove on therefore. But, soon becoming sensible you had me do wrong, that though we cannot relieve all the distressed, we should relieve as many as we can, I turned about to take up the soldier; but he had entered a byepath, and was no more to be found; and from that moment to this I could never find him out, to ask his forgiveness.

    Again, when the poor woman came to ask a charity in Philadelphia, you whispered that she looked like a drunkard, and that half a dollar was enough to give her for the ale-house. Those who want the dispositions to give easily find reasons why they ought not to give. When I sought her out afterwards, and did what I should have done at first, you know that she employed the money immediately towards placing her child at school.”

    This is the American morality lost in the ugliness of ignorance and avarice. Your attitude, FMSN, couldn’t be more the antithesis of these founding values. Relish in your unpitying pragmatism which is really only sniveling self-pity, but never delude yourself into believing that such pitiful justifications translate into anything resembling American greatness.

    Thomas Jefferson believed the heart of self-government was compassion and trust. This was the foundation for his confidence in the people to rule themselves. Of course he was aware that dishonest elements emerge (a diatribe I will save for another comment), but he never believed, nor do I, that a free people cannot govern themselves best. There may be impersonation fraud occurring in our elections. But I do not believe those few rotten apples could ever spoil the sweetness of the American core if all Americans are free, without restriction or intimidation, to vote their conscience. I contend election integrity is best preserved in participation. Conversely, election integrity is compromised with the menace of restriction.

  15. PJ says:


    You ask Steve how many votes would it take you to care? That’s a pretty insightful question. Let’s apply it to gun control laws. How many deaths would it take for you to care? You are so indignant at the two SEIU workers who cast fraudulent votes but you are so passive and so nonchalant when the matter is gun deaths. Surely you are aware there are more than two gun deaths in this country? How many gun deaths will it take you to care?

    How many responsible gun owners would you deny access to in order to prevent one gun death?

    To what extent would you inconvenience responsible gun owners in order to prevent one gun death?

    Do identification measures, background checks, waiting periods, castle doctrines. and concealed carry laws prevent legally purchased guns from entering the black market or the criminal underworld? Not so far.

    More importantly have these measures eradicated gun violence and gun death? Have they reached that desired number of zero gun deaths? Have they reduced it to even the unacceptable number of one? Not yet.

    Do you support more stringent gun measures than those mentioned above? The point is that prior to the wave of voter suppression laws enacted by the GOP, the states already had identification measures in place for voter registration. Just as there are already measures in place for gun ownership and use. You think tightening up voter laws and infringing the rights of eligible voters is acceptable, but you have yet to acknowledge the same for gun control laws given the same standards – one bad outcome is one too many.

    To your mind the matters at hand pertain to the honor system, and since we cannot rely on the honor system we must intervene and potentially infringe rights in the case of voting, but not in the case of firearms. Gee, maybe we should talk to some fourth graders about honor, outcomes, voting and gun control and see what they have to say. I tend to think they’d have more insightful thoughts than what you are trying to justify, which is so beyond ludicrous… It is impossible for any rational, moral individual to consider your position as serious or thoughtful. Again, I’d boldly challenge you to challenge your own assumptions. I guess you are just too intellectually lazy to think about all the matters that have been presented to you.

    Is one election tampering event too many? Is one rigged electronic voting machine one too many? What if one rigged machine wasn’t an isolated event by a random hacker, but a coordinated effort by a political party? Is that one corrupt party one too many? If an entire political party is corrupt do they have a right to continue operating if they repeatedly commit electoral fraud? Focusing on the potential fraudulence of one vote kind of misdirects you from any possible bigger picture doesn’t it? I mean, if you’re convinced that election integrity is a problem of individuals, that it could be your neighbor stealing your vote?

    I would ask you again: Is your vote stolen in Wisconsin if a fraudulent vote is cast in another state?

    Say I’m voter in Alabama. I could receive an exemption from the photo ID provision if I provide my name at the polling place, that name is on the eligible voter roll and is identified by two election officials at that polling place. Say I’m not who I say I am and I cast my vote in Alabama by giving those polling officials the name of an eligible voter. Is your vote stolen in Wisconsin when I cast my fraudulent vote in Alabama?

    If I obtain a Wisconsin driver’s license using identification information that isn’t my own, I then show that “valid” driver’s license at the polls, how is the voter identification law going prevent me from casting a fraudulent vote?

    What if I’m a voter in Kansas with a religious objection that prohibits me from having my photo taken? I submit my objections to the secretary of state and I receive an exemption. I then cast two votes in Kansas because the poll workers at each of the polling places where I cast my votes empathize with my right to religious liberty. Have I stolen your vote in Wisconsin? Has that Kansas poll worker stolen your vote in Wisconsin? Has the secretary of state in Kansas stolen your vote in Wisconsin?

    Let’s just consider voter ID in terms of liberty.

    You say: “See, you actually have to roll out of bed and make an effort. And apparently that is discriminatory.”

    What if I AM lazy and I don’t want to get an ID? Do I not have a right to be lazy? The GOP might not approve of my slovenly lifestyle but don’t I have the right to live the life I please even if that includes being lazy? What if I don’t want to be inconvenienced by the hassle of waiting at the DMV? Why is the GOP dictating how I live my life? Why should I be disenfranchised because the GOP thinks I should live my life differently? Are you discriminating against the lazy if you refuse to acknowledge their right to be lazy? Yes, you are. It is not your place nor the GOPs to decide the worth of any person. If I am prohibited from voting because I am too lazy to get an ID, my Constitutional rights are still violated. Strictly speaking the Constitution does protect my right to be lazy.

    You ARE denigrating people and you appear to have absorbed a whole lot of Catherine Coulter nonsense regarding race and racism. I would suggest you read over all of the comments you have made on this thread, as a matter of fact I would urge every reader to re-read every comment FMSN has made on this thread, to determine if any level of contempt or denigration has been expressed no matter the pitch. FMSN, you are finagling a lot of contradictions to reach your conclusions. And I wouldn’t say you are finagling them well. Your callow opinions are ill-considered and unreasoned. You have reached a conclusion that you cannot defend. When you can explain how disenfranchising millions of eligible voters prevents one ineligible voter from stealing one eligible vote within a system that has no standardized election procedures – when you can explain how those conditions enshrine the sacred right of suffrage I’m sure we will all be on the edge of our seats drinking in your wisdom.

  16. Other Side says:

    So now businesses cannot make decisions without FMSN approval. It’s to protect themselves from accusations of discrimination and, yes, fines. Thank lawyers for that … likely Romney supporters of greed.

  17. PJ says:


    Denigration: Strict Voter ID laws are intended to minimize participation of specific sectors of our society. You do denigrate when you assume all of the people with disabling conditions in this country receive government assistance. They do not. You assume because there are people who aren’t functioning so well in this society it means they don’t have legal jobs and that they are all on government assistance. That’s not accurate. When you conflate you denigrate and you’re also not flinging that accusation of being on government assistance as a condition to be proud of nor is there any note of compassion in your sudden recognition of other people.

    You callously dismiss the fact that African Americans are disproportionately affected by voter suppression laws. It might be easier to take you seriously if you do some basic research before blurting out patently false contentions. There are plenty of sources out there – outside of the Right Wing Propagandasphere to get those numbers. I’d remind you of another of Thomas Jefferson’s grave warnings – the people can govern themselves only when they’re educated. I suggest you take his advice and read a whole lot of stuff that you might disagree with – that’s how you learn to think for yourself. If you do, you’ll find that higher percentages of inner city voters do not drive. Higher percentages of college students have out of state drivers’ licenses. Higher percentages of the elderly and people with disabilities don’t drive. When you say something like “See, you actually have to roll out of bed and make an effort” you are implying worthless and lazy. You are denigrating the people you are referencing. Moreover, you’re conflating them all into one category of worthless and lazy. The act of conflation is denigrating.

    The ideology behind voter ID is denigration and suppression. You must recall Matthew Vadum – we need voter ID because the poor are “non-productive segments of the population” and just shouldn’t vote…. Scott Brown…. Why are those welfare recipients voting? Voter suppression laws are by their very nature denigrating. The motives are not election integrity – that’s the spin. Distinguishing between motive and spin is called critical thinking – without it our republic is doomed. Educate yourself, FMSN. Recognize what propaganda is and where it is. Your comments are immersed in it. Truth isn’t opinion. Neither are facts. You are wielding untruths and you are disbelieving of truths. Educate yourself.

    Do you know the percentage of young African American men without appropriate ID? It’s 78%. I realize that one of the provisions of some voter suppression laws are free IDs – gee that’s great, but why is the taxpayer footing the bill? Because otherwise it would be a poll tax. And it’s still a poll tax if there are any transportation costs to get a free ID. I suppose the real-life challenges of the poverty stricken are immaterial to you, though. The poor and the suffering don’t factor into Conservative pragmatism or Conservative passion or Conservative morality too very often. Pity that. It’d be kind of humanizing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *