Rasmussen’s Cheaters

David Thornton

David Thornton is a freelance writer and professional pilot who has also lived in Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. He is a graduate of the University of Georgia and Emmanuel College. He is Christian conservative/libertarian who was fortunate enough to have seen Ronald Reagan in person during his formative years. A former contributor to The Resurgent, David now writes for the Racket News with fellow Resurgent alum, Steve Berman, and his personal blog, CaptainKudzu. He currently lives with his wife and daughter near Columbus, Georgia. His son is serving in the US Air Force. You can find him on Twitter @CaptainKudzu and Facebook.

Related Post Roulette

30 Responses

  1. Damon
    Ignored
    says:

    “Did I sign the envelope acknowledging that I had assisted in the preparation of the envelope? I honestly don’t remember.” Depending upon the exact writing of the law, this could be considered “fraud”. At a minimum, it’s suggests possible influence on your wife’s ballot. When I’m doing 58 and a 55, the cop CAN pull me over. Question is it worth his time to do so and how rigorous does he choose to enforce the law.Report

  2. pillsy
    Ignored
    says:

    For instance, a ballot harvesting scandal in North Carolina ended in convictions of several people for stealing and destroying ballots in 2016 and 2018. The problem for the Republican narrative is that those people were working on behalf of a Republican candidate. Unlike the 2020 election, the fraud in these North Carolina elections left a trail of evidence that would stand up in court.

    Spend enough time telling people that voter fraud is rampant and never punished, and some of them will believe youReport

  3. Philip H
    Ignored
    says:

    I don’t thinks it’s actually Rasmussen that made the claims of criminal activity but rather the Heartland Institute. And they are definitely a biased actor.Report

  4. Pinky
    Ignored
    says:

    If I don’t leave a will, can my relatives be trusted to split up my belongings the way I would have wanted? Can each of them be equally sure of my intentions? Should the state trust the nearest relative?Report

  5. Marchmaine
    Ignored
    says:

    “I helped my wife navigate the absentee ballot process, but I didn’t change her vote or tell her who to vote for (although I certainly gave her my opinion!). Her vote reflected her own ideas about who should win the primary.”

    We did the same… besides my wife I also had 2/4 voting aged children around the table as we googled candidates and picked who we were voting for.

    That said, I still think it’s a blind spot for voting integrity that casting secret ballots at a neutral supervised polling place is specifically designed to solve. I mean, an argument against giving women the vote was that they’d just vote as their husbands told them — the polling place gave her the ability to vote *without* her husband watching how she voted. Or the old precinct captain buying votes, etc.

    Having the ballot extant and ‘guaranteed’ with a signature is, in fact, a lesser protection against overbearing influence, bribery, and coercion.

    I’ve ironically commented as spokesman for the Patriarchy that I should have as many votes as I have family members; and now I do.

    On the plus side, having a voting party in an upper middle-class household is hardly a fraudulent activity that will sway elections; It’s just that having ballots cast and secured and monitored is more than a polite fiction that we correct-opinion-havers should feel free to jettison in the name of convenience.Report

    • Michael Cain in reply to Marchmaine
      Ignored
      says:

      If men were voting their wives’ mail ballots against the wishes of the wives — a clear felony everywhere — it would come up in divorce proceedings.Report

      • Marchmaine in reply to Michael Cain
        Ignored
        says:

        That’s not the issue; the issue is people voting under the scrutiny of someone else.

        I’m talking less about outright fraud than what Tocqueville might have called ‘soft-fraud’.Report

        • Michael Cain in reply to Marchmaine
          Ignored
          says:

          Not directly on-topic, but I have always wondered what Tocqueville would have written if he had come 70 years later and toured the West. Post Civil War, a very different relationship between the federal and state governments, completely different settlement patterns than the East, vast empty swaths, semi-arid climate on average (what would be the first of Denver Water’s dams was under construction; Mulholland was taking active steps towards grabbing the Owens Valley water), huge federal land holdings, states where the population distrusted their legislatures enough that initiatives and recalls had been incorporated in the constitutions, women’s suffrage being rapidly adopted.Report

    • Philip H in reply to Marchmaine
      Ignored
      says:

      Tell you what – when election day is a national holiday AND every jurisdiction has easily available public transportation to get any and everyone to the polls, we can talk about reverting to in person in precinct voting.

      Until then, mail in is a nice compromise – one which both read and blue states have embraced and which shows little data of having been compromised.Report

      • Marchmaine in reply to Philip H
        Ignored
        says:

        Sure, I think election day should be a holiday anyway… I’d just as soon also end ‘off-year’ cycles while were at it — make the party bigger every two years!

        But there’s also another remote path to consider. Recently I took a wine certification test (for fun), and had to download an app to monitor my desktop for foreign apps and take the test; and, I had to use my phone camera to document that it was I taking the test (alone) and uninterrupted. For a dinky certification.

        The process was slightly clunky, but not nearly as clunky as I was afraid it was going to be. We could invest in making it much less clunky, more secure, and downright fun! Now, I sell software that could analyze the digital images and all the logs, so ‘fraud’ could be flagged digitally (I’m waving my hands here in typical Sales Rep fashion) to improve voter confidence. The actual vote log would be separate from the digital image ‘spoil’ log — so you’d have a two step process to keep the privacy of the vote separate from the act of voting. Voila, remote, secure, private voting.Report

  6. Michael Cain
    Ignored
    says:

    Some days I feel like I live in a different country. In the 13-state western region of the US, >90% of all ballots cast in 2022 were distributed by mail, and essentially no one is actually worried about fraud*. >90% of the people live where recreational marijuana is state-legal. The 11 contiguous of those states correspond to a good first approximation to the Western Interconnect electric grid. In 2022 the shares of electricity generation** there by source was 44% renewables, 32% natural gas, 16% coal, and 8% nuclear.

    * Consider Arizona, with a Republican-controlled (barely) legislature. Lots of bills about their vote by mail system, which >80% of registered voters use, were introduced since 2020. The Republican leadership very carefully kept all of the ones that proposed significant changes bottled up in committee until they died.

    ** Also to a good first approximation, the electricity consumed there matches the electricity generated there.Report

    • Pinky in reply to Michael Cain
      Ignored
      says:

      I’m not sure the point, except that your stoners are surprisingly not paranoid.Report

      • Philip H in reply to Pinky
        Ignored
        says:

        His point is that vote by mail is safe, and a system the red states embrace.Report

        • Pinky in reply to Philip H
          Ignored
          says:

          He didn’t say it was safe; he said no one was worried.Report

          • Michael Cain in reply to Pinky
            Ignored
            says:

            More accurately, not enough people are worried to change things.

            Prior to the national Republicans deciding that vote by mail was evil, approval of the Colorado system in the occasional in-state poll that asked was about 85% for Democrats, 80% for independents, and 75% for Republicans. Nothing else that I’m aware of ever polled that high or consistently.

            A couple of years ago, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) was on one of the Sunday morning shows and had a list of things that must absolutely be purged from voting systems. You could see that the host wanted to ask — but declined to do so — “Senator, you’re aware that the Utah legislature, controlled by Republicans, approved all of those things over the last couple of years, right? And the Republican governor signed the bills?”Report

      • Michael Cain in reply to Pinky
        Ignored
        says:

        Rasmussen describes a country where 30% of ballots are distributed by mail, and asserts it’s representative of everywhere. I live in a state where >95% of ballots are distributed by mail, and assert that Rasmussen’s numbers almost certainly can’t be applied to us as a subpopulation.

        Yes, a rather rant-y way of saying it, and I should have been clearer and simpler. It’s been a bad week for having people tell me that national numbers are representative of my western state.Report

  7. DavidTC
    Ignored
    says:

    I’ll start by saying that two things are glaringly obvious if you read the article with a skeptical eye. One is that Rasmussen makes a giant leap in claiming that helping a family member or friend to fill out an absentee ballot is “cheating” or “election fraud.” The second is that Rasmussen does not claim that these helpers marked the ballots contrary to the wishes of the absentee voters.

    THOSE are the two things you noticed? Cause there’s a much more obvious one that makes the claim fall completely apart! Here’s the claim I mean, for reference:

    “The results of this survey are nothing short of stunning,” said Justin Haskins, director of the Socialism Research Center at the Heartland Institute. “For the past three years, Americans have repeatedly been told that the 2020 election was the most secure in history. But if this poll’s findings are reflective of reality, the exact opposite is true. This conclusion isn’t based on conspiracy theories or suspect evidence, but rather from the responses made directly by the voters themselves.

    This is…like, literally, whoever wrote this article should be, I dunno, laughed out of town.

    Because there is absolutely no evidence that this ‘the opposite’ of the most secure election. For all we know, this is a much _lower_ than normal rate of ‘cheaters’.

    I mean, it’s not, it’s going to be exactly the same rate, but pretending it is somehow _less_ secure with no evidence for comparison is patently dishonest and exactly what one would expected from the Heartland Institute.Report

    • Pinky in reply to DavidTC
      Ignored
      says:

      Are you implying that polling places are more prone to fraud than the mail-in ballot system?Report

      • DavidTC in reply to Pinky
        Ignored
        says:

        Are you implying that polling places are more prone to fraud than the mail-in ballot system?

        Almost all systemic fraud that has impacted or even had the hypothetical ability to impact elections has been committed via subverting polling workers, so, yes, ‘polling places’ (If you include the vote counting process) are indeed ‘more prone to fraud’.

        The actual _voting_ process is not particularly susceptible to fraud at all…the last time that was used would be with the assistance _of_ the poll workers, and had people just basically walking in circles and repeated voting under the names of the dead. And that was like 100 years ago, in a completely controlled Chicago. It’s much much easier to mess with the _numbers_ or somehow sneak votes in.

        But with regard to ‘cheaters’, aka, people assisting with ballots, you know that people are allowed to get assistance during in-person voting too, right?Report

        • Pinky in reply to DavidTC
          Ignored
          says:

          Mail-in votes have to be counted too, so both in-person and by-mail voting is vulnerable to counting problems. My question was that you seemed to be implying that there’s less risk during the casting if someone is at home (or someone claims to be the person who’s at home) than if someone is at the polling place.Report

          • DavidTC in reply to Pinky
            Ignored
            says:

            My question was that you seemed to be implying that there’s less risk during the casting if someone is at home (or someone claims to be the person who’s at home) than if someone is at the polling place.

            Oh, I see what you’re saying. Yes, as a general concept, voting at home is less secure than at a polling place. I will agree with that.

            And thus, it seems, that ‘people voting by mail in record amounts in 2020’ could logically be argued to cause more risk than ever before, which is his claim.

            But…that’s not actually how it works, because it assumes the percentage that year is identical, and it almost certainly wasn’t. Secure measures increase over time, and a lot of the voting-by-mail infrastructure was nearly created or revamped for Covid in 2020, so a lot of those security measures were literally first implemented for that year. (I.e., a lot of jurisdictions sorta drifted along for decades with insecure mail-voting systems that were barely used and did not really follow best practices and no one cares, and then did a lot of work updating them for 2020 in expectation of massive new mail-in voters due to Covid.)

            Also, the poll has straight up gibberish in it, like ‘Furthermore, 17% of mail-in voters say that in the 2020 election, they cast a ballot in a state where they were no longer a permanent resident.’, which is _completely_ meaningless without previous years to compare to…you can’t even start to extrapolate anything like you can with ‘More mail-in ballots’. For all we know that’s down from previous years!Report

        • Chip Daniels in reply to DavidTC
          Ignored
          says:

          What most people don’t mention is that in order to achieve the desired result, i.e., changing the outcome of an election, the fraud needs to be very high up the tree.

          Having individual voters fraudulently cast ballots is nearly impossible to carry off in numbers sufficient to swing an election. In even small local races you need hundreds or thousands of votes to make a difference.

          Its far easier to subvert the election officials themselves.Report

  8. Michael Siegel
    Ignored
    says:

    Heartland and Rasmussen both knew no one would dig into the details, as you did. The misleading is deliberate. You can’t unring the bell.Report

    • DavidTC in reply to Michael Siegel
      Ignored
      says:

      Yes. People turning in ballots for other people, even if they entirely voted for them, does not make an election ‘insecure’, and certainly not in the conspiratorial manner that Trump pretended.

      The allegations Trump invented with no evidence was a systemic conspiracy to alter vote totals. (In addition to a bunch of nonsense.)

      Random dumbasses going ‘Grandma doesn’t know what she wants, I’m marking the ballot how I want’ (Which the article does not even provide evidence actually happened instead of ‘Grandma can’t read the ballot, let me mark it for her _how she wants_’.), is not going to impact anything, and even if it did it was a bunch of random people making random choices, not the conspiracy being invented out of thin air and screamed about.Report

  9. John Puccio
    Ignored
    says:

    I agree with the author that assisting a family member vote is not fraud, but the practice of wholesale Ballot Harvesting is sketchy AF and should be outlawed. Just because there is no widespread proof of fraud in these ballot dumps doesn’t mean that fraud didn’t happen (what’s the acceptable level of voter fraud?) nor does it guarantee that it won’t happen in a material way in future elections.

    If you are someone who cares about secure elections and having the losing side trust in the process, eliminating the practice seems to be an easy concession to make.Report

    • DavidTC in reply to John Puccio
      Ignored
      says:

      No.

      If the government is concerned about ballot harvesting, the _government_ can go door to door collecting ballots. Print a 1-800 number on the ballot, dial it, give them a time, the government will show up at your door and collect it.

      Will we do that? Of course not.

      Half the states have their damn ballots require buying fricking _postage_, which as a) literally a poll tax, yes, even if it’s that small, and b) incredibly inconvenient for a lot of people as people sending mail is basically dead as a concept. The problem isn’t the 50 cents stamp or whatever they are, the problem is I’ll have to go to the post office during open hours and stand in line to buy a single stamp. (Or I’ll have to buy a $30 roll of stamps from somewhere, which actually is getting into meaningful poll tax territory.)

      That’s my rule for all things that make it harder to vote in exchange for ‘security’…the government can set up whatever rules it wants _but only if it helps people get through them_.

      I have the same thing about voter ID: I am 100% on requiring it to vote, but only if people without ID can contact the government and get supported through a process to _get them_ that ID, taken step by step, getting copies of birth certificates paid for, or getting in front of a judge, with witness as to their identity, and explaining things, etc, whatever it takes for them to get ID, and the government is literally forbidden from giving up and from pretending an actual human being standing in front of them does not exist.

      That sort of thing to ‘secure’ elections is NEVER suggested as a compromise. Ever.Report

Leave a Reply

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