A few notes on vote fraud.

The Public Brewery has a few links to some vote fraud commentary, and I want to offer this clarification because I think a lot of people are focusing on the wrong things.

One fellow is stating that this is not an excuse to requires IDs to vote, and a few of them chalk this up to sloppiness more than fraud.

There was definitely sloppiness here, but that does not mean that there was no fraud. In fact the opposite correlation is true: more sloppiness leads to more fraud. As an example, if you leave your car unlocked it is much more likely to be stolen. The robber is still at fault even though you helped him out a bit. That being said, the city's sloppiness does need to be fixed, however, I believe that the lack of good record keeping is related to the fraud (let's say, more fraud leads to more sloppiness). Private businesses that keep poor records are often beset with fraud (See every recent corporate scandal) and this sloppiness does not get cleaned up because those in power have the most to lose. Put a less incendiary way, if vote fraud (or at least sloppiness) was having a negative effect on the current incumbents, they would fix it. Therefore, the internal problems are less likely to be fixed.

As for the ID question, I really don't understand how you can oppose requiring a photo ID on principle. I do understand how you can oppose it based on self interest. One blogger believes that requiring a photo ID will not help. This assertion is silly. I again refer you to the unlocked car. While a thief that is really driven to steal your car will not be deterred by a simple lock, the casual thief will be. This measure would eliminate the casual thief at very little cost, and there are a lot of casual thieves if you give them an opportunity.

Moreover, assertions that this would disenfranchise minorities and the elderly strike me as racist and ageist. Basically you're arguing that requiring white voters to have an ID would pose no problems, but requiring black voters to have an ID would cause a massive drop-off in turnout. That is a racist assertion. Obtaining an ID is not the same as requiring a poll tax or a literacy test, which can be arbitrarily rigged to deny someone the right to vote. Everyone can easily obtain an ID. If you are poor, they are free.

One last thing. I'm sure the Republican talking heads up there are going on and on about how Democrats are dishonest and they support fraud because it helps them. I do not mean to assert that Democrats are supporters of fraud. What I do think is that when you put people in a situation where fraud is likely to occur, it will usually occur. Usually the party in power will be responsible. The reason for this is that it is easier to cheat when most people support you, and when you are doing most of the monitoring.

I believe that most of the fraud in Milwaukee was committed by Democrats, but only because there are so many Democrats in Milwaukee. A Republican trying to steal an election in Milwaukee would be insane. He would be exposed in a second. If the "Milwaukee scenario" was reconstructed in a heavily Republican area, I have little doubt that the same shenanigans would occur. And they probably do.

Update:

I should clarify a few more things.

First of all, I think that requiring photo ID's could affect minority turnout in one of two ways. First of all, requiring an extra step will undoubtedly drive down turnout in general. This happened with anything that is made more difficult of expensive. What I'm not convinced about is that it will drive down minority turnout more than any other demographic. I think that it is feasible that it may drive minority turnout up, relative to the rest of the population, if said minority populace does in fact feel threatened by the new requirement. With a poll tax or a literacy test, black voters were powerless. In this scenario they would have the opportunity to be very powerful.

Secondly, I'm quite sure that there are republicans in Wisconsin who want this provision enacted with the specific intent of driving down the minority vote. That is certainly not a good thing, but it also doesn't make it a bad idea. In politics people often do good things for the wrong reasons (more often they do the wrong things for the wrong reasons, but that's neither here nor there), and dealing with the motives of the proponents of an idea will often lead you to discount too much.

Thirdly, I am of the opinion that voting is too easy. This may sound elitist of me, and maybe it is, but I would rather have someone who really cares about voting actually voting than someone who walks in and registers on the same day with no ID. It is important to strike a balance between citizen participation and election integrity. These two issues are in conflict. I simply think that Wisconsin has veered too far towards encouraging citizen participation, and sacrificed integrity.

I'm open to opposing views, but I have yet to hear anything too convincing.