Another election scandal: CNN exposes Brendan Loy, reveals students can choose which state to vote in!

I cannot for the life of me find, in the NYT or anywhere else, the supposedly written piece of Investigative Reporting apparently referenced in this CNN transcript — scroll way down to locate the interview headlined, at top, “Young Voters Live, Vote In Separate States”. Perhaps it hasn’t been published yet. More probably it’s been Suppressed as just too horrifying; after all, how much more Fraud can we be expected to take?

Accordingly I herewith excerpt the pertinent transcript segment from CNN Live Saturday, Aired October 30, 2004 – 16:00 ET. Emphases added as usual. Note the closely-reasoned analysis throughout.


FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: ….Well, young voters are expected to have a big impact in Tuesday’s election. But there’s a twist, many 20-somethings could live in one state but vote in another. Even those all-important battleground states included. “New York Times” writer Jennifer Lee joins us live to talk how this is possible. Good to see you, Jennifer.

JENNIFER LEE, NEW YORK TIMES: Hi.

WHITFIELD: Well, it’s encouraging to know an awful lot of young voters, perhaps it’s going to be one of the large largest numbers on record, are coming out to vote. But you write about the ambiguity of the states if they are declaring to be residents. How is this confusion taking place?

LEE: Well, actually, what you’ll find is that there are a lot of people who are students who can actually live in one place, may have a driver’s license from another place, may have a cell phone from yet another third state and they vote in any one of those three places. So, my favorite example is a girl at the University of Southern California who has a driver’s license from California, has a New York City cell phone number, but is voting in Florida, even though she’s never lived in Florida.

WHITFIELD: I thought the rule was you declare residency where your driver’s license is declared.

LEE: No, it’s not — actually, that’s not true. The residency is defined sort of on a state by state locality by locality level. And so what gives you sort of the definition of driver’s license residency may be different from voter eligibility. So like a great example is, actually, the state of California allows you to put out of state addresses on your California driver’s license, which I think is really interesting.

WHITFIELD: So, are you finding from a lot of the young people you interviewed for your articles, that there is some real strategy behind this? That they are paying attention to what the battleground states are. And how much more powerful their vote might be depending on the state they choose?

LEE: Oh, completely. Completely. These people are, for a long time, political strategists have always paid attention to the battleground states and electoral college. And now you see that same kind of savviness among 22-year-olds or 25-year-olds. I may live in Texas, but actually my vote in Florida or Pennsylvania or Michigan counts 4 times as much. So, I’m going to register where my parents live, even though I haven’t lived in Pennsylvania in the last — since college.

WHITFIELD: When did they become so savvy when there was so much criticism and worry that a number of the young people were very complacent about the importance of this election and others?

LEE: I think, everyone has become more savvy about the importance of the electoral college after the 2000 election. Because, to a certain extent, you had four or five states that were decided within 7,000 or 8,000 vote margins. I mean, you had 366 votes in New Mexico in 2000, you had 4,144 votes in, I think, Iowa. And then you had in other states, such as, in addition to Florida, you had other states that are — Wisconsin was 5,700 and some votes as well.

So everyone in those states can see that their votes really count. That if you come out to vote, you as an individual can actually have an impact. Whereas people who live in solidly blue or solidly red states don’t feel their votes count as much.

And so, you have lots of students thinking very strategically. And people going on college campuses in battleground states, a couple of weeks ago specifically trying to reach students and telling them to register locally as opposed to far away.

WHITFIELD: OK. Jennifer Lee with the “New york Times,” thanks so much.

LEE: Thank you.

This appalling & corrupt exercise of the constitutional right of every adult citizen, age 18 to 118 and beyond, with multiple dwelling-places to decide which one is her/his bona fide residence for voting purposes is intolerable in our democracy. I call for numerous overlapping investigations to make certain that this can never happen again.

:>

10 Responses to “Another election scandal: CNN exposes Brendan Loy, reveals students can choose which state to vote in!”

  1. Ken says:

    Right….as long as we don’t investigate the 18-20 year-olds!!!

  2. Joe Loy says:

    HEE HEE! Thanks Ken. :) I have corrected it to “…age 18 to 118 and beyond…” / Other readers, if any :) – my paragraph after the Transcript had said “age 21 to 121 and beyond”.

    See in MYYYYY day Sonny, the voting age WAS 21!!! THAT stopped a LOT of these here dam’ wisearse College Punks from votin’ ANYWHERES, see??? Yessirree! Them were the Days!!! Whyyy…OW! Muh dam’ Artheritis is kickin’ up again, now where’d I put that dam’ Liniment? (grumble grumble can’t remember nuthin’ no more…) Hope it don’t last so long this time, knock on wood… (knock knock) Oh! Somebody’s at the Door…

    :)

  3. Andrew says:

    None of that bothers me, as long as they’re not voting in two different places, a possibility that was talked about in a story I heard earlier concerning some 25,000 voters registered in both Ohio and Florida.

  4. Joe Loy says:

    Yeah, I saw something about that too.

    Just intuitively, I’ve no doubt that millions of people — by no means all or even mostly college students — are registered in 2 (or more) states.

    Also intuitively, I greatly doubt that more than a relative handful of them are actually “voting in two different places.” For one thing, it’s obviously Wrong. For another, they would assume (not necessarily correctly) that it’s Risky. For yet another, it simply wouldn’t Occur to them anyway. And if nothing else, it’s too much trouble – they couldn’t be Bothered. :)

    I read that a few instances of actual Double Voting in Florida plus Someplace Else have been Exposed by Media (or other non-governmental) review. Florida is being very stern about these instances, re prosecution, and rightly so. Justice, plus Deterrence value.

    But I’d bet that Most of my Multiply-registered Millions don’t even know it. Their Fraud is Unintentional.

    Here is a Parable of how it usually happens, I’d suggest.

    You are born & raised in Texas. Your family moves several times within that fair state during your Youth. You breeze through Texas Tech untroubled by thoughts of Politics. At the age of 25, out on your own with a nice apartment right there in Lubbock, you register — a First Time Voter — at the behest of your Good Buddy to support his Old Lady for School board and get them atheistical textbooks out of the Curriculum. She loses. The next year you transfer to a new position in Waco and 2 years after that, to the Bigtime in Big D. You don’t do anything about your Registration. It doesn’t Occur to you.

    Then comes the Job Opportunity of a Lifetime, in far California! Right quick, you accept the offer & head on out to Santa Ana. Couple months later some evil-looking skinny guy comes knocking on your apartment door with Voter Registration forms. Says he’s from the Republican Party of Orange County. Goes into a big Screed about how we gotta Re-elect the President. “Hell, yeah! Boo-yah! Kick ass!”, you reply, and you grab that piece of paper right quick.

    However, when you come to the part about “Last previous Place of Voter Registration…State, County, Municipality or other Jurisdiction, Precinct, Voting Address…” etc. — well, you jes’ kinda Draw a Blank. (Uh, was it Lubbock? No wait — Dallas! Um, no…Waco? HOUSTON! No… Ah wasn’t Old enough back then…er…SAN ANTONE! Sure!… No, wait, dammit, that was just that coupla nights with Maria…adios, mi corazone… :) So, you just write down “Doan’ Mess Wif TX!” & sign the dam’ thing.

    Months later, when your Affidavit of Cancellation of Prior Registration is received from the California Republic by the great State of Tennessee (TN) — the Volunteer mail clerk throws it in the sh*tcan. What else can she do? :)

    Now you are Registered in Lubbock, Texas (your name Preserved on their List at least as an “Inactive” voter, by Federal law :) AND in Santa Ana, CA — and you have No Idea that this is the case. / Nor does TX. Nor CA.

    For you see: there is no National Voterlist Database to be Cross-checked. Because, there is still No Such Thing as a National Election. :)

    Of course even after we have Gone to a Popular-vote National Election, & thus in due course Inevitably to a National voter list database centrally administered from Warshington Dee Cee by Meee :) — there WILL still be many Uncaught multiple registrations. / But, there will be far Fewer of them. Just as there now are far fewer Uncaught intra-state ones, as States move increasingly to centralized Statewide voter-reg databases as called for by HAVA.

    Full, & First-time-ever-including-to-Himself, Disclosure: when Brendan, having discovered via assiduous Research that CA had more Electoral Votes than CT :), registered in Los Angeles in 2000 & of course DID correctly & completely put down his Previous Voter-Registration data on the CA form for CT Cancellation purposes — Newington, CT did not receive said Cancellation prior to the November 2000 election. I personally Know this for a Fact. / I also know that it was neither Brendan’s fault, nor Los Angeles County’s, nor the State of California’s, nor the Town of Newington’s. / Now just what governmental entity THAT might leave to Blame for the Delay, I shall Leave to Your imagination with only the Hint that it wasn’t Tom DeLay. :) In any case, the Result was that the B-Man COULD — theoretically & effectively, albeit still Illegally — have Voted Twice in 2000. / He didn’t, of course. He would Never do such a thing. Plus, I never Told him about it until Now. Temptation is Bad. :) Hi Brendan. :) [Of course, the question of whether his CA/LA Provisional Ballot ever got Counted, also remains forever Shrouded in Mystery.]

  5. Andrew says:

    I am quite sure it’s almost entirely unintentional. Thing is, I think post-facto punishment is not enough; we need to have systems in place that update and cross-check the registries to make even an attempt at fraud very unlikely. Somehow I don’t think this would fly with Dems….

  6. Joe Loy says:

    “…we need to have systems in place that update and cross-check the registries to make even an attempt at fraud very unlikely. Somehow I don’t think this would fly with Dems….”

    Andrew, you gnostical mutt. :) You are Missing the Point. Again. :)

    The Systems-in-Place which you Propose are MUCH more likely to Fly with Big-Gummint Dems than they are with Principled Repubs, always assuming we can still Find a few of the latter. :)

    BECAUSE, dummy :), such Systems can only be Put in Place via a Massive & very Costly Nationalization of the elections-administration Process — well-&-truly Federalizing & Centralizing it, for the first time, in a Hugely-expanded & vastly-Empowered elections bureaucracy in Washington.

    (Now MEEE, of course I’m ready to be Reporting for Duty, SIR! :) But you, Andrew — well, I’d rather have thought better of You. / “My Lord Rich, it profits a man nothing if he gains the world and yet loses his immortal soul. But for Wales, Richard, for Wales!” – Sir Thomas Moore” :)

  7. Ken says:

    About the voting age…It was 21 in MY day too….I was 20 at the time of the Humphrey/Nixon election…so I couldn’t vote. By the time the next election came about I was 24 so I could vote…but by then all those kiddy voters were allowed too!!! However, I still consider myself “young” until the first President is elected who is younger than me…It won’t happen this year either!!

  8. Joe Loy says:

    Ken, then I do believe we are the very Same Age, ya Geezer. :) Yes, it was a Very Good Year: Dewey Defeated Truman, after all. :)

    “…I still consider myself ‘young’ until the first President is elected who is younger than me. It won’t happen this year either!!”

    Guess not. Not quite. We’re still keepin’ ahead of the whippersnappers, Ken. Barely. puff puff puff…pant pant…:)

    But speaking of Puffs & Pants, I think Clinton :) came the closest to Underflanking us re Age, didn’t he? (Or, is it W? How old is he? Chronologically I mean. Adulthood has multiple meanings… :) But speaking of perpetual adolescence, did I ever mention that Bill & I Overlapped at Georgetown? Chronologically I mean. :) Yes, I was a huge Friend of Bubba’s. HAHAHAHAHAHA! Only difference was, he Graduated. :>

  9. Andrew says:

    [Editor’s note: For the purposes of adhering to my previous statement that I would not comment further on politics, I consider the following to be a non-political comment in reply to Joe Loy; I would instead categorize this as a governmental process/constitutional law/procedure remark.]

    Joe, far be it for me to discuss the political ramnifications of implementing a system such as I recommended, but I think we can agree that conservatives and strict constructionists would tend to support federalizing an issue that, well, deserves to be federal. E.g., a system that encompasses cross-checking multiple states would obviously fall outside the jurisdiction of any individual state, and since it involves federal offices, the rationale for federalizing the issue seems pretty obvious. I suppose it could be done like the regional water and power (as in electricity) authorities, though. Also, remember, we’re talking about the party that brought you the FMA here.

    Meanwhile, I’d be glad to see you work for such a bureaucracy. Although you are a partisan hack among the best of them, I trust your integrity on such matters (in other words, while you may wink at voter fraud possibly taking place elsewhere, if it was your job to prevent it from happening, methinks you’d do your job… unless the fish were biting that day). :-P

  10. Joe Loy says:

    LOL!!! You Republicans are quite Jolly today. (Hi Alasdair. Jolly Good. :)

    “…I consider the following to be a non-political comment in reply to Joe Loy; I would instead categorize this as a governmental process/constitutional law/procedure remark.”

    I entirely agree on all points.

    “…Although you are a partisan hack among the best of them, I trust your integrity on such matters…methinks you’d do your job… unless the fish were biting that day).”

    I entirely agree on all points. :)

    “…I think we can agree that conservatives and strict constructionists would tend to support federalizing an issue that, well, deserves to be federal.”

    Good. Um, could you send me that in hard copy, with your signature? Just a formality, you understand…that way I’ll have it on Irrefutable Authority when in future I explain to the Cons & the Strictconstructs the many Issues which Deserve to be Federal and that’s a Fact. :)

    [Gee it’s fun when you know he can’t Answer yet. ;]

    “…a system that encompasses cross-checking multiple states would obviously fall outside the jurisdiction of any individual state, and since it involves federal offices, the rationale for federalizing the issue seems pretty obvious.”

    Not nearly so obvious as it will be if we abolish the EC in favor of the PV. That will absolutely compel a centralized National registry list as well as many, many other (mostly as-yet-unConsidered) Uniformity-imposing Nationalizations: voter eligibility, legal disfranchisement, registration (and many other) deadlines, ballot-access requirements, etc. etc. etc. ad almost infinitum. (btw this is the Thumbnail of My version of Brendan’s now-deferred “The Scrutiny Is Not A Good Thing” essay. Someday, I shall Expound. :)

    But until then — until EC abolition, not until my full Expoundment which may prove even more difficult to achieve :) — yeah, it involves “federal offices” as defined by Federal statute (backed by Federal court decisions) for campaign-finance-regulation and various other purposes too; yet it remains, in a very real-not-just-theoretical sense, 51 separate State elections for, constitutionally, State offices. Thus the Rationale for Federalizing the Voting Lists & purging the interstate Duplicates, while plausible, is not so Compelling as it will be when everybody’s vote is actually Equal & actually goes directly toward Chusing a President.

    What We Got Here, Andrew, is the Makings of a Deal. :) You & I both agree to support left-liberal plebiscitary election by the PV, AND G.F.Will-style big-government-conservative nationalized Purging of the Fraud-freak Punk-ass Multiples from the rolls. :) Deal? :)

    I know. Ye canna Speake. Waw haw haw…Hey, the Midnight cometh. :)