Choices, choices

Ran HaCohen writes:

[T]ake the voting patterns of American-Israelis. John McCain won 63% of the votes in the State of Utah, 65% in Wyoming, 66% in Oklahoma; no state gave him more. But among the 40,000 American voters residing in Israel (mostly well-integrated immigrants, or their children), McCain got as much as 75% of the votes, according to polls. That's extremism.

(To the right of Oklahoma?  Now that's saying something.)

No wonder: though official Israel was wise enough to keep silent, the media made it clear that McCain was Israel's preferred candidate, due to the concerns that Obama might take a more balanced (i.e. "Anti-Semitic") stand towards Israel.

Yes, Obama's "balanced" approach on Israel is well-known.

In my wildest fantasies I imagine what it's like to be an Israel-first voter:

Average voter: Hmm, the broken glass sandwich or the cow pie dumplings?  I can't decide.

Israel-first voter: Hmm, the free Lamborghini or the free Lotus?  It's so hard to choose!  Can I just have both?  I can?  Thanks!

Speaking of AIPAC: isn't it interesting that Mr. "real change isn't another four years of defending lobbyists who don't represent real Americans" has gone on bended knee year after year to swear his loyalty to lobbyists who don't represent real Americans?

Comments

[SteveB]

I've never understood how this "Americans voting abroad" thing works. Do their votes get counted in the last state they lived in? I can't vote in Wisconsin unless I have proof of a valid current Wisconsin address, but someone living in Israel can? In fact, our Republican Attorney General has been aggressively pushing a "voter ID" law that would require me to go to the DMV to update my drivers license every time I move, or lose my voting rights. Obviously, I should have moved to Israel, rather than just across town.

Which brings me to another voting-rights question. Do you know if anyone's ever done a study of how many people with second homes vote in both locations? Might be a way for those rich folks to counterbalance all that ACORN-sponsored "voting fraud." Anyway, its interesting to compare the relative amount of media attention given to these two "threats to the integrity of our elections."

[John Caruso]

There's some info here; it says that eligibility and residency requirements are determined on a state-by-state basis, so I guess you should move to New York if you want to be able to vote indefinitely. And I guess that's a bright side of the story—since most of these people were probably from Brooklyn, their votes don't matter anyway.

The main thing I know about voting fraud at the individual level is that it's essentially nonexistent. And I'd definitely agree that the relative levels of media attention paid to various forms of election abuse are instructive.

[SteveB]

See, that's what I like about this blog. I'm too lazy to google "absentee voting", so you do it for me. I appreciate this service, and will expect more of it in the future.

I agree that individual voting fraud (i.e. the same person voting multiple times) is virtually nonexistent, but it still irks me that John McCain could have potentially voted absentee from every one of his ten residences, and none of those shouting about "voter fraud" seems the least bit interested in this potential threat to our democracy.

One of our local right-wing talkers was going on about the "outrage" of letting homeless people to vote by allowing them to give a shelter or street corner as an address, and now I find out that Wisconsin allows you to vote in our state even if you have never resided in the state of Wisconsin. We just take your county of residence as the county in which your parents live (or did live - apparently, your parents can be dead and you still get to vote in their county... or maybe you have to change to the county in which they're buried?)

[KDelphi]

It is true, it is by state.

Being from Ohio--I know!! lol.In ohio , anyway, it depends on wheter the governor or D or R.