Kaus and Althouse notice the same thing I did

The comments on these two blog posts are good too:

http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/kausfiles/2010/11/10/is-there-a-gore-curse-in-close-races.html
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2010/11/why-do-dems-win-all-close-races.html

A “Gore Curse”? Mickey Kaus is only pretending to be using Occam’s butterknife here, he is aware that voter fraud in the USA is an overwhelmingly Democratic crime. I want to see the new House pass some really super strong anti-voter-fraud measures. The Senate will pass it because at least 4 Democrats will go along (of 33 Senate seats up for reelection in 2012, only 10 are Republican, so the Democrats are extremely vulnerable to losing the Senate then and the Democratic Senators running cannot afford to alienate the voters). Then Obama gets to veto it (tons of fun as the GOP gets to criticize him) or sign it (more fun as the Dems turn on him).

Advertisements

About Polymath

Discoverable with effort
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Kaus and Althouse notice the same thing I did

  1. Anonymous Crab says:

    If voter fraud were an actual problem (and judging from the lack of prosecutions, successful or otherwise, it’s not), Democrats (assuming they were the ones committing all the fraud) would be winning these races ON ELECTION DAY, because they would have successfully, what is it, sent the Mexicans in to vote using the names of the dead? Let’s be honest and admit that isn’t happening, and that “super strong anti-voter-fraud measures,” like TSA airport security measures, aren’t going to do anything but harass and hassle legitimate voters.

    If there is something fraudulent happening that’s causing the Democrats to illegitimately win these contests only after days of counting, it’s clearly happening behind the scenes: sacks of fake votes being hidden away until needed, or a rigged counting system, or something like that.

    Personally, I think the most likely scenario is that going to hand counting is always going to favor the Democratic candidate because his voters will be the most likely to have screwed up their ballot in a way that upset the automatic counting machine, but where the voter’s intent is still obvious. (i.e., they voted a straight Democratic ticket, but filled in both the Democrat’s and the Republican’s ovals on the race in question, drew an X through the Republican, and circled the Democrat’s name. I think that’s a pretty clear showing of intent to vote for the Democrat, but the machine wouldn’t be able to handle that.

  2. The lack of prosecutions is because 1) Democrats were in charge of the Justice Department or 2) GW Bush was in charge of the Justice Department and because of the strange circumstances of his own election in 2000 he thought it better to leave this issue alone.

    There is all kinds of fraud, both election-day and later. Your conclusion is illogical: I am remarking that the particular kind of fraud known as “ballot-box-stuffing”, which occurs in close elections when additional ballots keep being found and counted for several days after the election, or certain notorious precincts don’t report their results until after everyone else and always have just enough votes to put a candidate over the top, is the logical explanation for the phenomenon of close elections switching over the following few days, and THIS phenomenon practically always favors Democrats. The fact that other types of fraud are possible does nothing to invalidate my observation, and I never said there wasn’t election-day cheating too. (And the strong anti-fraud legislation I am suggesting would of course address both types of cheating.)

    You are right that going to hand counting will favor Democrats because, while having the same average IQ as Republicans, they have a larger standard deviation in their IQ distribution (more smart people AND more stupid people) and it is the stupid ones who screw up their ballots. However, the eight cases of Democrats “winning late” this year observed by Mickey Kaus did not involve switching to hand counting, a much longer-drawn-out process that only occurs when a candidate contests the result of the election.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s