Day: January 18, 2010

The late voters of Massachusetts

And the Obama Administration wants compulsory universal voter registration? Maybe we should work on culling rolls instead of adding to them! This from Robert Romano at the Washington News Alert:

As reported by CNS News, “In Massachusetts, 116,483 registered voters are dead, 3.38 percent of the state’s total of registered voters. Another 538,567, or 15.6 percent, had moved to an area outside of where they are registered to vote.”

Americans for Limited Government Foundation’s project leader, Dan Tripp, is on the ground in Massachusetts monitoring the special election, and said that “for fraudsters, it’s a numbers game. It only takes a few hundred people voting at multiple locations to change the outcome of any statewide election, including Massachusetts’ special senatorial election.”

Generally, in Massachusetts, voters need to provide a name and address associated with the voting list at the polling location in order to vote. There is no voter ID requirement unless a voter registered after 2003 by mail and is a first-time voter.

According to Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson, “The implication of dead people showing up at the polls means that it’s no longer sufficient to win an election with a simple majority. Now, candidates need a 4 or 5 point swing just to pad against potential fraud.”

“And that undermines our free form of government at its very core,” Wilson concluded.

Chances are tomorrow’s turnout will be relatively low because most special elections only bring out the hardcore voters – casual voters don’t always go when there’s only one item on the ballot. If you assume 25 percent turnout, those dearly departed voters could be a 13 point swing if their ballots are abused and the most optimistic polls show Scott Brown with a high single-digit lead. Obviously that would be a concern!

Given some of the shenanigans we’ve seen over the last several years with post-election ballot counting, we truly need to work in the opposite direction with ballot access. I have no idea why Democrats are against photo ID at the ballot box unless they seek to use the lack of same to their advantage.

And since we have “shall-issue” absentee ballots in Maryland (another practice which should be tightened up somewhat) we really didn’t need to adopt early voting. Obviously the voters disagreed with me but I think if we don’t see any better of a turnout in the next couple elections the issue needs to be revisited. To me, there’s too much expense to local election boards and potential for fraud to continue with early voting unless we see at least a 10 or 15 percent increase in turnout.

A saying attributed to Joseph Stalin goes as follows: “Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything.” Obviously it behooves the state of Massachusetts and poll watchers to make sure that only the votes of the living (and legal) are counted. If the votes come in properly and Martha Coakley wins, so be it.

But there’s been too many last-minute comebacks by Democrats to be sure everything’s above board when they pull off a victory, and Washington Democrats aren’t willing to hear the people’s voice if they don’t like the results in Massachusetts (by threatening to delay Scott Brown’s swearing in just to maintain their 60 vote majority for the maximum length of time possible.)

Maybe the best way to look at the situation is to quote Lord Acton – “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” It is only when the people are in power that a republic runs properly.

What can Brown do for Maryland?

Top of fold update: At least one Maryland U.S. Senate candidate is getting a firsthand look at the situation on the ground in Massachusetts – Dr. Eric Wargotz’s Facebook page states he’s in the Bay State helping out.

Unless you are still in a self-induced coma from overdoing it during the recent holiday season you’re probably aware of tomorrow’s special election in Massachusetts to fill the unexpired term (through the 2012 election) of the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy. 

This is an election most notable for Scott Brown’s response to a debate question on filling the “Kennedy seat”: “It’s not the ‘Kennedy seat’ and it’s not the Democrats’ seat – it’s the people’s seat.” After that  remark and what was widely scored as a resounding head-to-head victory over his gaffe-prone opponent Martha Coakley, Brown has surged to the lead in many statewide polls, shocking the Democrat establishment and placing into question the Democrats’ 60-seat Senate majority.

(It bears repeating as well that the Democrats regained the 60th seat after Kennedy’s death by reversing a state law enacted in 2004 when Massachusetts had a Republican governor and there was the possibility Senator John Kerry would have to leave his seat if elected President. That 2004 law prevented the naming of a successor by the governor and allowed for a special election. Needing that 60th seat and knowing he was gravely ill, Kennedy himself pushed for the change and made it possible for Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick to name a fellow Democrat to the Senate.)

Political mavens are quite aware that Massachusetts is one of the most partisan states in the country and Democrats there hold an enormous voter registration advantage over the GOP. However, unaffiliated voters make up the largest percentage of the Bay State electorate and Brown is carrying the day easily among the group, negating the Democrats’ numerical advantage.

Obviously a Brown win would hearten the Republican Party in Massachusetts, but it also brings with it the prospects of winning in otherwise unthinkable races – such as the U.S. Senate race in Maryland where four hopefuls (Daniel McAndrew, Jim Rutledge, Corrogan Vaughn, and Dr. Eric Wargotz) look to unseat longtime incumbent Senator Barbara Mikulski.

While the numbers in Maryland aren’t quite as bad as they are in Massachusetts, there are more negative factors at play here. Obviously the seat is still held by Senator Mikulski and, despite some recent health issues, by all accounts she’s still relatively active and of sound mind despite her advancing age (Mikulski turns 74 in July.) Unless something unexpected happens between now and November, Mikulski is a sure bet to seek a fifth term in the Senate.

The other disadvantage comes in the fact that Maryland’s race won’t be an outlier like this Senate race is because of its unique position on the calendar. On Election Day in 2010 over 1/3 of the Senate is at stake and national attention will focus on races deemed as toss-ups, including the contest in neighboring Delaware to finish Vice-President Biden’s unexpired term (through 2014 – remember, Biden won twice in Delaware in 2008.) A further handicap may be Maryland’s late primary, where GOP candidates have to work against each other until the middle of September before training their guns solely on Barbara. (However, if all four run against her that can be negated. She has a record which is worth assailing.)

But that’s not to say Maryland’s race is unwinnable. The nation is in an anti-incumbent mood and Mikulski isn’t known for much besides being a Democrat loyalist (some would say hack). Nor has Mikulski had to truly campaign, cruising to victory by margins ranging from 21 to 42 points in four elections (in 2004 she defeated State Senator E.J. Pipkin by a 65% to 34% margin.)

One has to ask just what Mikulski is doing for the state by being so compliant with the liberal Democrat line. Obviously I question the liberal Democrat line myself since it’s doing little good for the nation, but one needs to ask about just how well Maryland is being represented by a Senator who seemingly never leaves the Washington area. At least I’ve seen Ben Cardin in these farflung parts of Maryland, but of the representatives I’m currently saddled with I’ve yet to meet Senator Mikulski.

So the question becomes whether Senator Mikulski is in touch with her state or simply feels entitled to the seat, as in “the Mikulski seat.” Perhaps she votes in a way she thinks is in the state’s interest because the state is solidly Democratic in terms of voter registration.

But, as we see in Massachusetts, poor governance transcends party identification and in rural parts of Maryland being a Democrat doesn’t necessarily mean toeing the party line at the ballot box. Making an issue of Mikulski’s “politics as usual” can be a strategy which pays off, and working hard to get votes against an aloof incumbent could lead to a surprise November 2nd.

The question to be determined in the coming months is: ideological differences aside, who will become our Scott Brown and how hard will be work to pull off a victory?