Recently, there was an allegation made to the Crow Wing County attorney concerning possible abuse of voting privileges with mentally handicapped individuals. The county attorney stated in a recent newspaper article that an investigation had been conducted and no evidence of wrongdoing was found. However, this got me to thinking about the relative ease with which such possible abuse could take place if someone had a mind to do so.
A search of the Minnesota Constitution finds that under Article 7, "persons under guardianship or not mentally competent are not entitled to vote." However, subsequent Minnesota statutes have attempted to clarify this article and to further expand the rights of mentally handicapped individuals. For instance, Statute 524.5-313(c)(8) states that unless otherwise ordered by the court, the ward under guardianship retains the right to vote. Minnesota legislators, in their attempts at further expanding the rights of this population to vote, unfortunately have now placed vulnerable adults in a position to be potentially exploited rather easily. Currently, there are no restrictions on whether a person can vote based on their competency to comprehend the voting material. Likewise, if they cannot read the ballot material, this is not a hindrance to the voting process. The current Minnesota law allows a developmentally disabled person to have another individual, of their choice, be present with them in the voting booth to read the ballot and fill in the ballot for them, if desired. Even if the individual has been legally determined to need a guardian, they may still participate in the voting process and have the above-mentioned assistant with them in the voting booth. The very nature of the voting booth, which is to be private and not subject to scrutiny by others, creates a perfect setting for abuse to take place, as no one would ever be able to see what took place if, for instance, the assistant to the mentally disabled individual elected to fill in the ballot for this person by voting the way the assistant intended. The Minnesota law initially was written with the understanding that this assistance by others would take place on Election Day and would be under the scrutiny, and even the possible assistance, of election judges of multiple political parties. This was written into the law to prevent just such aforementioned possible abuses and fraud. However, further liberalizing of voting requirements now allow for an extended period of absentee voting, with the availability of this early voting at the county courthouse for up to 45 days prior to election day, and with no election judges present, only county employees. This would seem to afford a much greater opportunity for a vulnerable adult to be used and abused by the very voting system that was, by some legislator's intent, aimed at giving maximum freedom for everyone to vote.
As a psychiatrist, I have worked with mentally ill and developmentally disabled individuals for almost 40 years. I remember well the discrimination that used to happen to them and the steps the state of Minnesota has taken to change that. However, in the state's rush to correct these problems, it appears to me that the pendulum has now swung the other way; that the lack of attention to competency has again placed these individuals at serious risk of abuse. This must be corrected, or we will surely see abuse of these vulnerable people, who do not have the wherewithall to stand against manipulation, as well as abuse of our voting system, by unscrupulous individuals who do not have the dignity and rights of mentally handicapped individuals as their primary concern.
THOMAS WITTKOPP, M.D., is a psychiatrist in private practice in Brainerd and Staples.
Comments (68)
Add commentHit the nail on the head!
The good Doctor hit the nail right on the head with this column.
I’d also agree that Mr. Jensen’s reason for filing an affidavit regarding voter fraud was for no other reason than for what he witnessed, which I suspect distinctly reflects the message of concern in Dr. Tom Wittkopp’s column.
People attacking Mr. Jensen for reporting what he perceived as voter fraud seem to be of the mind Jensen disagrees with the mentally challenged having the privilege to vote, or else they’re of a mind that Jensen is just a right wing hack intent on blaming Democrats for what happened and nothing else.
I’m of the opinion that people following the line of thinking I’ve identified above are partisan to the extent they would probably encourage similar voter fraud if the opportunity presented itself.
Or, at the very least, they’d never report similar fraud if they witnessed it themselves.
I am completely confident if Jensen had witnessed the same situation again but this time overheard the conversation reflecting straight-line GOP endorsed voting, he’d have been just as outraged.
Jeff Czeczok
Missed the nail on the head
I read the article written by Dr.Wittkopp. Unfortunately he has decided to group all mentally handicapped individuals as incompetent to make decisions and to vote. Once again an entire article printed with no facts and what if's. We could talk all day about made up scenarios. Lets talk about some facts today. Most staff that provide services for people with special needs are not unsnscrupulous individuals but are honest hard working people, that absolutely provide amazing care. Some mentally handicapped people are mildly affected and live very productive lives when compared to our own. Some marry, work, and have families. Dr. Whittkopp would have these people set aside. During the last 35 years the shift to move mentally handicapped people into community based services has been a huge success. The Doctor has worked to assist people for years to improve their lives by providing treatment, these treatments have allowed people to lead productive lives, similar to how WE live. Apparently the Doctor does not believe in his own work. I will provide this article to the people, families, case managers and guardians for them to determine the Doctors character and committment to his customers. I am aware that the Doctor is a member of the "Patriot Resistance" group that has aligned themselves with Montgomery Jensen. He has been on the web site talking about voter rights. So once again people another politically motivated attempt to disenfrancise a group of people from voting in elections. In the Doctors article he states he, "remembers well the discrimination that used to happen to them" Well guess what, he has continued to create the exact same discrimination he talks about. Get real Doctor, what about No Voter Fraud Found During the Investigation do you not understand??. By the way there is No voting booth at the Historic Court house, your group was there with a video camera. I have worked with handicapped people for 32 years and this article is dissapointing coming from a person that has made his living serving people with disabilities. I have not seen a law that states people are only intended to vote on election day. 36% of all adult people voted in Crow Wing County. 64% stayed home, I believe your Patriot Resistance Organization would prefer much less so they could control the voting outcome here.
Lets find some facts not fiction
Consider reading the articles provided by a knowledgable source regarding the attempt to disenfranchise groups of voters. Someone that is not writing on assumptions.
Someone with 30 + years experience with voter fraud accusations.
You can read the articles regarding Monty Jensen.
www.penigma.blogspot.com
"Knowledge" isn’t anonymous
“Most staff” and “Some mentally handicapped people”, serve as two of the most important ‘so-called facts’ to focus on when reading "justpartofthejobcitizen’s" above argument against Dr. Wittkopp’s concern.
Wittkopp nowhere suggests he desires the voting privileges of the mentally disabled be denied. NOWHERE.
Jstpartofthejobcitizen’s anonymous accusation carries no credibility and clearly indicates he/she has no problem with a system which makes manipulation of the vulnerable easier.
I am confident Dr. Wittkopp supports the mentally disabled having the right to vote protected, and clearly defined. However, by pointing out the ineffective process and lack of safeguards in which this group of people are assisted in voting, he then receives the false label, maliciously applied, of being against their right to vote.
Thank you Doctor Wittkopp for placing your name and decade’s-long reputation on the line in an effort to show how abuse of the most vulnerable amongst us can happen, as it did by at least one individual assisting mentally disabled people on October 29th at the Crow Wing County Courthouse.
Jeff Czeczok
Voting by people with disabilities is a right we should value
I am saddened to read the comments by Dr. Wittkopp. Minnesota citizens with intellectual and mental health disabilities have opinions and want to have a voice in the political system. During a hearing to establish guardianship a judge may withdraw the right to vote, but this should be a rare event. To learn more about voting rights of Minnesota's people with disabilities, and to hear their stories about why they value the right to vote, I invite readers to visit this website: www.myvoicemyvote.org .
Chris Bremer, PhD
this is a crock
"I am completely confident if Jensen had witnessed the same situation again but this time overheard the conversation reflecting straight-line GOP endorsed voting, he’d have been just as outraged.
Jeff Czeczok"
The problem is that Monty Jensen didn't witness anything.
He claims to have been at the court house witnessing voting abuse.
The disabled people he claims to have observed voted and went home an hour before he claims to have arrived.
Jensen claims to have witnessed a female person improperly assist a disabled person who was not qualified to vote.
Jensen doesn't KNOW who is or is not qualified to vote - you can't tell by casual observation. And all the assistants to the disabled voters that Friday afternoon were men.
Therefore Monty Jensen didn't see what he claims he saw. In other words - he lied about the circumstances of these disabled voters. And Crow Wing county tax payers have to pick up the tab for the investigation of that lie, which I imagine is substantial.
Monty Jensen didn't just 'happen' to be at the court house voting either. Jensen and a group of his political associates (a group with which Dr. Wittkop is reputed to be connected, btw, which he didn't mention but should have, ethically) were part of a larger movement offering $500 rewards for finding voter fraud -- it didn't have to be good, honest reports, just reports. Like Jensen's not factual report.
And according to the actual disabled voters, the ones that Jensen didn't actually SEE voting - some of them WERE vocal about voting for straight Republican voters that Friday, and are quite certain that is how their ballots were marked by their assistants. Their all male assistants.
That is why the investigation didn't find any wrongdoing; there wasn't any to find, other than Jensen lying in his video, that is. For having been so dishonest about his claims, personally, I think Jensen should be held responsible for those investigation costs, unlike a genuine witnessing of events that deserve investigation. This was pure political theater, not a crime reported in good faith.
That was the basis for my writing: http://penigma.blogspot.com/2010/12/monty-jensen-is-liar-crow-wing-count..., and that will be the basis for my joining Lynn Peterson in a radio interview on Dec. 20th.
"Dog Gone" Strange Rationale
A disabled veteran goes to the CWC Courthouse to vote absentee.
He witnesses what he perceives to be voter fraud and files an affidavit with the County Attorney.
He stands nothing, and I mean nothing to gain by risking his credible reputation in exposing something he feels was inherently wrong.
He never, and I mean never said who the people were or where they came from.
So now we have people believing he lied to not only the County Attorney, but also the FBI...in the hopes of accomplishing what?
These people accuse him of a felony in a public format.
These same people believe he would commit a felony in order to accomplish what?
This simple-minded rationale some people use to discredit an individual willing to put his name and reputation on the line isn’t worth one single further word of discussion or debate, end of story, period.
JVC
End of Story?
Sorry 'Vincent', but the "end of story" was the County Attorney's finding that there was "NO EVIDENCE OF VOTER FRAUD". Perhaps you missed it.
Sleepr2 is dreaming
Vincent,
Jensen can't describe something he didn't see.
If he can't describe more accurately what he saw - he can't identify someone's actual abilities by casual observation, so he can't correctly reflect what they were doing;
or when he saw it - he claims to have seen people who were not there at the time,
or whom he saw - he incorrectly identifies a woman staffer when the staff assistants were male -
then Jensen didn't see anything. He made it up, no matter how much you want the story to be true; it was a lie.
The investigation didn't support Jensen, not at all.
Jensen very clearly had an agenda, one which involved finding voter fraud whether it existed or not, and which involved being very prominent in the media - not simply reporting the event to authorities.
Slpr 2 wrote : "Really Mission, do I have to provide all the links of convicted liberal voter fraud again?
Face it , without illegals, felons and dead people the liberals would have no base."
Yes, Sloppy slpr2, please do. Because if you check you will find that over and over, not just in MN, what you claim is not supported by factual findings, not at all. There are NOT a lot of cases of voter fraud; it is rare. The voting of illegals, or felons is rare - referring to current felons who are not allowed to vote, as distinct from former felons who have regained their voting rights.
We have one of the leading experts in the world on that very subject right here in MN - Chris Uggen, head of the Sociology department at the U of MN. Perhaps you should read some of his work. Or the most recent report on voter fraud in MN that also confirms that we don't have a problem.
Without wing nuts like Jensen, your tea party would have no base. We have an excellent voting system in MN, it is quite justifiably one of the best in the country, and held up as an example to other states.
For example, those ver fewy not-frivolous legitimate ballot challenges made in the voter recount for governor - they're posted for every citizen to see at the Sec State site. No one has to take someone else's word for it about their legitimacy or lack of it.
You've got nothing, Slpr2 -- just like Jensen.
I understand however that Dr. Wittkopp is professionally familiar with one or more of the individuals Jensen claims was incompetent to vote.
I find it interesting that as those individuals have for the most part gone through the legal court process that affirms their voting privileges, that Dr. Wittkopp didn't speak up for these people being qualified, since that has been legally established. I understand that those who voted have the support of their families and where appointed, their guardians, as to their capabilities - and as to the integrity of their assistants in voting. EVEN the REPUBLICAN family members of those disabled individuals.
I guess the good doctor's political opinions got in the way of his professional knowledge on that point.
he never said?
"He never, and I mean never said who the people were or where they came from."
He continued to refer to them after they were identified in derogatory and unujustified ways.
He made up the statement 'this is the 4th group in today', which the staff denies.
Which makes senes as there were no other groups in that day.
Jensen isn't honest, and it doesn't matter that he is a disabled vet. Lynn Peterson is a veteran as well. Jensen is just trying to use his military service to apparently give cover to his inaccurate statements defaming disabled people.
And the really sad thing about that is the number of veterans returning from combat with injuries, especially brain injuries who are similarly disabled like those who voted that he disrespected so terribly. Vets who sacrificed themselves for our liberties. If Jensen had his way, those injured vets would lose their right to vote, the very right they fought to defend. Shame, shame shame on Jensen.
anonymity isn't knowledge
Dog Gone identifies everyone but her/his self. Most of the presentation is ad hominem attack. That speaks to credibility. The intensity alone gives pause as to motive. The blog referenced is clearly partisan and slightly cracked. The protest from groups never identified by Monty is striking, and, I think, quite revelatory of an immense problem in our electoral process and political atmosphere. Monty isn't going away, Dog Gone. The truth will out. Bank on it.
Guy Green
Brainerd
anonymity isn't knowledge
Lots of people use a nom de plume Guy, especially in blogging.
I am banking on the truth coming out. I have been far more factual than Monty Jensen, and more consisent with the outcome of the investigation.
Has Jensen gone to the FBI yet? I can't wait. In the interim, I believe other parties have gone to respective state authorities for further intervention - and not in support of Jensen.
I imagine for example, that our friend slipr2 is unaware of the difference between voter registration fraud - which is uncommon, but does happen, and voter fraud, which is incredibly rare. People may file their registration improperly (duplicats are the most common), but they don't then turn up and try to vote on them in any significant numbers. I'm always surprised at how few people know their subject; perhaps they didn't do well in high school civics, and haven't done any reading since.
Or, tragically, they think that sources like Fox News or Rush Limbaugh are factual. You might want to begin with a couple of MY favorite sources - factcheck.org and politifact.com. Or I could provide you a more academically challenging reading list on the subject of voter fraud, as distinct from voter registration fraud.
Some of the more interesting cases of actual voter fraud have been Republicans, not Democrats, like the case involving the election of Sen. Mary Landrieu in Louisiana some years ago.
Disenfranchise many voters because fraud could possibly occur?
Many people require help in the voting booth. So where would those concerned about the theoretical possibility of fraud want to draw the line? Should veterans with brain injuries be allowed to vote? How about seniors who have had strokes? Now, judges determine who should have their voting rights terminated. Would somoene else do a better job? It is a very slippery slope to disenfranchise people through a political process. That is an abuse I would be much more concerned about than the possibility of voting fraud by a person assisting a voter. Voting fraud is a felony -- who would risk that just to add one vote to a candidate's margin? This is not a question of Dr. Wittkopp's motivations or character, but rather about the importance of preserving citizens' rights from the winds of political whim, from either side of the aisle.
Chris Bremer
nom de plume
Yes, lots of people use pen names, "dog gone." Especially in blogging. Most criminals use an alias as well. My point is: this isn't your blog. It is the public comment section of a local newspaper. I find it disgusting that some folks, including the editors, find it a suitable place for anonymous slander. That would not happen in a responsible public venue. A responsible public venue in this newspaper will not happen under current management. People like you will continue no matter what. Honest, responsible folks will just have to do the research, using clues like the willingness to identify oneself with one's positions as a guide in deciding issues like credibility. It's dog gone tough work sometimes. See you in the movies.
Guy Green
Brainerd
nom de plume
A responsible public venue doesn't censor people without justification. The paper requires a name and email address when you sign up to comment; that is sufficient.
There is nothing criminal about using a nom de plume. I have written not only on Penigma, but more nationally prominent blogs using that name - Politicus USA, where I was a contributing author, and an admin., and also on OpinionEditorial.com, where I am one of only two authors they sought from MN, and now just recently, I did a syndication contract with a major media company for the U.S. and Canada under that nom de plume. Having begun under that nom de plume for fun, when I became more established, I simply continued rather than start over to establish my writing identity. That has nothing to do with criminal behavior.
I did my own probing into this story; I called Jensen a liar before, not after, the sheriff's investigation results were released.
I was approached for my national writing associations because of two things - I do very thorough research, and I was singled out for my ability to do independent analysis.
I'll match that research and analysis against any information you would care to provide. Jensen's story stinks; the disabled voters in question were not at the court house when he claims to have voted at 4:30; the individuals who provided the assistance to the disabled voters were nothing like the people he described as assisting. He describes being in a polling booth; there are no polling booths for that voting at the auditor's office. His other claims, like they were the 4th group in that day, all contrive to create an impression that there is wide spread manipulation of disabled people going on. There isn't, and no such event occurred that day, not anything like it is supported by the participants, or by other people in the court house on other business.
There is a word for people who make up details and who make up the important substance of their stories. It's called lying. Jensen is a liar.
censorship
Censorship is a function of a government, child. And I never said there was anything criminal about using a nom de plume. Learn to read. The paper may choose to not print anything it chooses, or realizes is improper and unfounded. In this case, it is most irresponsible in printing your unsigned rantings. Why wouldn't Mr. Ryan have charged Jensen if he were lying? Filing a false report? Neither the paper, nor you, have any justification for slander. Least of all anonymous slander. There isn't another venue in town prepared to assist you, as you have already found out. Both you and Mr. McCollough's newspaper should be ashamed of yourselves. Judging by your self-satifaction, and bountiful modesty, I'd say you don't carry any shame on your person, and have whatever stash you've managed to acquire very well hidden away. Rather than use the "flag as offensive" tool on the nifty new website, I'll just do my flagging out front. Right where the readers can see the judgment of the Brainerd Dispatch editorial staff in plain sight. I suppose we owe you a little something for providing the opportunity, Dog. Put it on my tab.
Guy Green
Vote Fraud and anonimity
Guy,
First, historically many critics maintain anonimity so that they can feel somewhat safe from reprisal. This is a long-standing tradition, and one which there is no need to engage in ad hominem to address. If you don't like Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens) or Currer Bell (Charlotte Bronte) or Boz (Charles Dickens), that's your decision, but it's not one which generally has been viewed as reasonable. We (people) understand there are times when people put themselves at risk for writing what they write or utter what they utter. Included in the list of famous protesters are the members of those who through the Boston Tea Party (fyi). The reason for someone wanting to use a psuedonym are many, and there is simply no call to attack someone for it or assault their integrity for it.
In my case, I have been threatened by right-wingers, including having them threaten to kill me for comments they didn't like. As a result, I don't chose to tell them my name, though my fellow bloggers know my personal identity. This meme' that only people who report their actual names are credible is itself, increadible to hear/see given the history of pen-name critics in our (and the world's) past. However, seeking to have people put themselves at risk in order to satisfy your demands, seems like a demand which will only be followed by other demands. C.S. Lewis (for example) didn't chose to expose his personal grief (to his friends), but chose to write about it, for you, he apparently MUST disclose his identity for the story to be credible? Do I have that corrct? If not, what's the difference? Dog Gone is merely stating a positoin about facts in this case, and being critical of Monty Jensen's (now) extraordinarily dubious claims. How does that criticism differ from C.S. Lewis' personal commentary about his experiences through the death of his wife? Why is DG's privacy NOT to be respected, but Lewis' should be?
Bluntly, it seems to me you are casting about for a reason to disparage this criticism because you are otherwise unable to dispute the facts themselves. In short, it seems like ad hominem - needless personal attack to deflect from the actual issue.
As for this story, I am a veteran. I'd like to understand what bar we will ask for someone to get over to vote? Shall we bar the mentally challenged? If so, do we set an IQ test? How about a physical ability test? How about a racial purity test? Where do we stop? People who are mentally challenged work and pay taxes and deserve representation. I, in part, served to preserve that right of the mentally challenged to vote, of those who suffer brain injuries, so long as they have the cognitive ability to chose and desire to go to the polls, no matter how physically infirmed, to vote.
I ALSO would be aghast if someone said that veterans, injured in war, would be (or rather SHOULD BE) denied the right to vote if they are physically disabled to the point they can't "get themselves to the polls" or some other standard (arbitrarily set) that they don't get "over the bar" that folks like Mr. Jensen (apparently) chose to make/enforce.
Lastly, in-depth, qualified study has shown the incidence of vote fraud is so rare and trivial as to be meaningless. I'd refer you to a study by the Brennan Center for Justice of New York Univiersity which commented that state-wide reviews of the elections in Washington and Ohio showed fraud rates of 0.0004 and 0.00009% respectively. Using those as figures, this means, in the state of Minnesota, with an average of roughly 2 million voters, we have roughly between 1.8 and 8 (yes E-I-G-H-T) total votes per election cycle of ACTUAL, purposeful fraud. To prevent it, folks like Sleeper2 would have us disenfranchise (prevent) up to 10% of ALL voters, or 200,000 people. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Truly, we probably have more errors in COUNTING than we do with vote fraud. It happens, it does Sleeper2, but it's so rare as to be meaningless. I'll provide the link below so that you can do some reading on objective research rather than anecdotal stories. Mr. Jensen's complaints are anecdotal sound and fury proving nothing.
http://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_the_truth_...
equation
Don't be coy, Guy. When you wrote :
"Yes, lots of people use pen names, "dog gone." Especially in blogging. Most criminals use an alias as well."
you clearly create a link equating blogging pen names with criminal aliases; otherwise what would be the point in bringing up criminals?
I find it insightful that you object to what I write under a nom de plume, but not what anyone else writes using one. This does bring your motives into question.
You ask " Why wouldn't Mr. Ryan have charged Jensen if he were lying? Filing a false report?" . You don't address the challenges that Jensen falsely identified who assisted the disabled voters, you don't address the time frame discrepancy when Jensen was there, you don't address any issues of fact.
I don't know why Ryan didn't charge Jensen with filing a false report - perhaps he will. I suspect that just as with releasing the investigation results late on a Friday afternoon, when typically information is missed or buried, Ryan was hoping this would go away, and he was giving what minimal cover to Jensen he could within the discretion of his office.
Perhaps you should also be asking why Jensen went to Ryan rather than to the sheriff's department to file his complaint, as the sheriff would have appeared to me at least to be the more correct agency to report this to, not the DA.
If someone wants to sue me for slander, they can contact me at the Penigma email address, penigma2@hotmail.com, or they can subpoena the newspaper for the information I provided when I signed up to comment. I'm not hiding from anyone. And yes, I'm quite proud of what I have written, and I take pride in the research I did which led me to call Jensen a liar. I stand by it. Perhaps you should do as much research yourself into the facts, before you challenge me.
Before you do that, you might want to check out this most recent study of alleged voter fraud in MN, one compiled from the data of Minnesota county attorneys, just released in November 2010:
http://ceimn.org/files/Facts%20about%20Ineligible%20Voting%20and%20Voter...
It would give you a better basis to discuss problems with the false claims of voter fraud made by Jensen and the groups with which he affiliates. If you are interested in facts, instead of fatuous ad hominem. Do your homework Guy, and then we can talk.
facts, lies, and hit jobs manipulating Crow Wing County election
Guy - do you know what first caught my attention about Monty Jensen's story? The time. Assisted living facilities don't take two mini vans full of residents and staff to assist them anywhere at 4:30 in the afternoon; certainly not to vote when the office closes at 5:00. They wouldn't be sure of finishing on time; they wouldn't have their residents back in time for meals and med routines. And of course, they didn't take them at 4:30; they took them at 3:00. There were other lies too, of course, in Jensen's story.
But I asked myself why would Jensen hit the media with this when it was almost certain the investigation would find against him. Why would he file the complaint, knowing he lied?
Why would Jensen make such an unusual effort at a media blitz? WHY THE TIMING of Jensen's accusation and media blitz?
The answer was simple - to affect the election. Which he did; my next question was..."is the auditor running for re-election?" ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh HAH!
The investigation results couldn't possibly benefit the auditor in time to affect the election.
To test my theory, I called the KSAX tip line, and asked them a question that apparently was NOT asked (but should have been) as part of the investigation of Jensen's accusations. I asked how they were alerted, and when, to this story. And I was told, without asking, that the person who alerted them was NOT happy that they didn't just blindly report Jensen's claims.
Now do you begin, perhaps, Guy to see why it is my editors credit me with independent analysis, and with doing my homework, asking questions that other people don't ask?
Now do you see why I doubt that Jensen will go to the FBI? Because they will in all probability ask those same questions, on top of finding the same lies told by Jensen that the sheriff's investigation found. Now do you see why I think it will be other people than Jensen who go to the Attorney General and the Sec. State, Guy?
Or are you still naively believing Jensen for some unfathomable reason? I don't think this story is over Guy.
Do you?
Gone To The Dogs
I think people who publicly liken themselves to Dickens and Twain, and brag about how much their editors admire them, yet still haven't the integrity to sign their names, are the writers most in need of editors...and are the least likely to ever meet a real one.
GG
from Penigma's website
Seems penigma can't decide about the value of anonymity. From that website today:
"Of course the original writer's name is off the record! I would be surprised if it is ever attached to the 'record'.
Because the story isn't true. If his name were on the record, the source, a GOP candidate by one report, not merely a recount watcher, could be held accountable for this hoax, this right wing example of disinformation. If it came from a real source, not this kind of anonymous circulation, the disinformation wouldn't work nearly as well. Readers would have recourse to complain, to challenge."
Penigma and Dog Gone have been posting here for a very short time and their agenda and integrity are already a farce.
GG
The CEI report
The CEI report is well worth reading. I respectfully suggest that all of you read it and then comment on the substance of the issue of voter fraud in Minnesota. If the kind of energy being expended here to question others' motivations would be applied to understanding and discussing the issue, it would be a good thing. Just a thought. :-)
http://ceimn.org/files/Facts%20about%20Ineligible%20Voting%20and%20Voter...
Chris Bremer
Farces and farcifal
Guy,
I gave you a tactful reply. As someone who sought public office, I would have expected you'd have valued reasoned debate. It appears intead you value ad hominem. That's truly a shame.
I gave you a valid reason for someone to seek to retain anonymity, you instead conflate it into comparisons with Twain - my point to you was that real writers, real critics have used anonymity as a safeguard - because you said it wasn't the actions of a legitimate writer/editor/paper. Now you say it's simply not the action of an ILlegitimate writer - which way is it?
What it appears is that you engage in is simply attacks. I'm not sure what was "credible" or not, but you were provided some facts by DG about vote fraud, then you were provided further details by me about the net/total impact of vote fraud and I questioned why it mattered if DG used a psuedonym, asking you how it's ok for one critic, but not another. Your reaction was to insult both DG and I - I suppose that's the conduct of an intollerant, angry knee-jerk reaction prone person, but it's not the reaction from a mayoral candidate, or at least it's not the reaction I'd expect. I asked you a legitimate question, I'd like an answer, what maked DG ineligible to use a psuedonym, but someone like Charlotte Bronte IS able to? It seems your answer is just that YOU don't like DG's writing, therefore it's not ok. Talk about subjective ethics.
Chris, FYI, I concur
Chris,
FYI, I concur completely. I read your report and it indicates results consistent with the Brennan Justice Center study. Namely, it points out that vote fraud is a nearly non-existent issue. Of the incidence of vote fraud, the vast majority (77%) is related to felons voting, and that in many cases, the felons aren't aware they aren't supposed. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, but there is no "mens rea", no guilty mind here. Consequently, in most cases, felons aren't charged, they are warned/fined, etc.. to ensure they know they shouldn't vote. Given that, it leaves only 23% of the body of fraudulent votes being akin to what Mr. Jensen asserted (but was found to not have occured), namely false attestation of identity or duplicative voting. This occurs so rarely that the incidents probably can be counted on one hand with fingers remaining for each election cycle in Minnesota.
Consequently, while I suppose I would like to stop it from happening, I'd also like to stop people from jaywalking (which happens MUCH more often) - but since the impact is so de minimus, I think expending energy to stop it is money thrown away.
Conversely, voter ID requirements are estimated to disenfranchise as high as 10% of the electorate. Should we stop 200,000 people from voting to prevent 8 fraudulent votes (or 40?). I think the answer to that question is obvious.
What I wonder is, given the relatively EASILY validated fact that vote fraud is rare and effectively has NO impact, why do people want to push this? Why are people like Mr. Jensen willing to (it seems) lie about occurances of vote fraud?
I think the answer is that folks like Jensen are pawns in a movement seeking to disenfranchise poor (and disabled) voters because they think they vote predominantly for one party. They are using the false spectre of vote fraud to gin up fear of defrauded elections and electorate, even though they know it isn't the case (as your study points out). When confronted with the facts about the paucity of real vote fraud cases, they instead engage in ad hominem.
St. Jude, call your office, please.
Penny, are you trying to convince yourself, or the readers, that your hypocritical posts have meaning outside the myopic world of your own convoluted logic? The former is unnecessary, the latter an exercise in futility. I haven't seen pedantry to rival yours since my old lefty days with Barry Commoner. My conversations with you are concluded. I've seen thousands like you in my time, and there ain't an ounce of hope in leading you to the real world. Have a nice life. Don't leave your fellow sophists disappointed by leaving out your catty victory declaration, now. Can't have you varying from the party norm.
Good work and good words, Dog
Good work and good words, Dog Gone and Penigma! It was obvious from the very outset that Jensen was not only attempting to fabricate the truth, and in the process, indict voting procedures, election personnel, and Democrats, but was also complicit with other far-right wacks in conspiring to bring this all about.
Ignore gramps ........... his stock-in-trade on these boards prior to his seeking public office had been anonymous McCarthy-esque ad hominem. Now that he's 'outed' himself in his mayoral quest, it drives him mad to read opposing opinion posted under pseudonym. LOL!
CEI report
Just FYI -- Penigma, the CEI report is not one I had any role in creating. I do, however, think it is well-done and very credible. I hope many more people become informed about the extent of voter fraud in Minnesota (very low), and the sources of voter fraud, which are detailed and discussed in the report. People with prior felony convictions who vote even though they are not allowed to is the biggest issue. One approach to address this is to be sure that convicted felons know that they should not vote. A bill was passed in the Minnesota legislature to address this, but Gov. Pawlenty vetoed it because he was concerned that it would place a burden on the entities that would need to communicate with these individuals. Another approach is to allow felons who have served their sentences to be allowed to vote. This is something many other states do. Looking at it from a strictly economic perspective, incarceration of felons who vote illegally because they do not know the law is an unnecessary cost to our criminal justice system, and represents a loss of tax dollars paid by people who otherwise would (hopefully) be in the workforce. Therefore, inaction is not the best approach. In any event, worrying about fraud by those helping people with disabilities to vote (the place where this discussion started) would be a poor use of resources. There is no evidence that this is a problem. Our state has lots of real issues that need the urgent attention of our legislators.
Chris Bremer
anonymity?
Here is the thing, Guy. Busting voter fraud has become a sort of minor hobby of mine, just like making false claims of voter fraud is a hobby of some of you on the right.
In the case of making an accusation of voter fraud, which was promoted by a mutual friend of Pen's and myself, this was - for context - the third or fourth of these mostly anonymous hoaxes in a row.
I had begun with debunking the Cincinnati High School student voter fraud hoax,
http://penigma.blogspot.com/2010/10/voting-for-ice-cream-left-or-right.html
which had been circulated by Fox fake news, and a Minnesota right wing talk show host, Hugh Hewitt. I don't really care about the identity or lack of it of the 'highly placed GOP candidate' (they always have some authority, sheesh). I really am objecting to the fact that when these claims are made, there is not the slightest, most minimal effort to verify the information before circulating it widely. I'm advocating for healthy skepticism, given the repeated evidence that these voter fraud accusations are hoaxes, over and over and over and over.
A previous claim on the same site of voter fraud related to an Alzheimer's patient who supposedly was registered by dread, evil union members who worked as caretakers. Except that they kind of forgot that it was perfectly easy to check to see if the lady had voted - or her vote had been cast for her, as they claimed. The claimants of that voter fraud, the anonymous claimant, vigorously refused to do any such check.
What you fail to note, since you are reading my post on the 103 Dinkytown ballot challenge hoax, is that I provide in my post all of the many ways - and there are many - that it is demonstrable this is as false an accusation as the others, that the ballot challenges are a matter of public record, or that the recount process for Hennepin county - which includes Dinkytown - was televised by theuptake.org., so anyone and everyone could see it, making fraud pretty damn difficult.
Do you always miss the point so selectively, so completely, Guy? Hmmm; guess it is no wonder you don't get elected.
I just posted an update on that Cincinnati High School students voter fraud hoax, btw. In case anyone else has been finding multiple voter fraud hoaxes as entertaining to 'bust' as I have.
Reading them might expand on why it is so obvious Monty Jensen is a liar. In the nature of supplying quality sources rather than ad hominem of the vague and unsupported nature that Guy favors, check out this legal source, commenting on why you should all distrust Jensen's claims:
http://minnlawyer.com/jdr/2010/11/15/speaking-of-voter-fraud/
The blind leading the bland
Sort of like "anniejo" is ignoring me now with his post, Dog and Penny.
complicit in lies
Thanks Anniejo for the kind words.
Every voter fraud hoax I have debunked - and there are a few now - has had a couple of common characteristics.
First of all, there is always some facet of the details which to me at least screams false. In the case of the Cincinnati School student voter fraud, it was the notion that any high school had three busloads of seniors old enough to vote. I went to a very large high school; we didn't have that many kids eighteen or over at that point in the school year. And sure enough, it turned out to be three, not three bus loads, of students involved. Contrary to the right wing talk shows, blogs, and Fox news.
In the case of Jensen, it was the time of day. I've had not one but two elderly relatives afflicted with Alzheimer's, who lived in assisted care facilities (plural), one of whom I went through the legal process of losing voting rights in the course of being found mentally incapacitated to make decisions. From there I found out that Jensen belonged to a group which wanted but apparently did not have polling place challenger status (see http://www.sos.state.mn.us/index.aspx?page=522) but they were seen hanging around the court house kibbitzing on voters anyway.
That, and the $500 reward for voter fraud being offered, pretty much blew the innocent 'I was just there voting' aspect of Jensen's claims. That, and the media frenzy BEFORE filing a complaint, and of course, the curious timing of it all.
Then there was the statements of the disabled voters themselves, and of course, the despicable attempt by Jensen to humiliate those disabled voters. I think there will be a special place in hell for people like Jensen, for attempting to manipulate the way disabled people are viewed for personal and political gain. Because clearly, Jensen could not possibly know the capabilities of these disabled voters, and did not fairly represent them in his video claims. By Jensen's standards, one of the smartest men of our time, the closest thing we have to a living equal to Albert Einstein, is Stephen Hawking. Jensen would have declared someone like the incredibly brilliant Mr. Hawking too 'mentally incapacitated' to be allowed to vote. (Yes, obviously Stephen Hawking, being a Brit couldn't vote in a U.S. election; the point is, he is brilliant, and you can't tell that by looking at him, and he is severely disabled). There is a very good reason we don't allow stupid people like Jensen to make that determination - in his case, possibly without having seen the disabled people who voted at all.