【世事关心】上门收集选票 2018的黑幕 2020的隐忧

【新唐人2018年12月25日讯】【世事关心】上门收集选票 2018的黑幕 2020的隐忧:中期选举过去六周后,基本上每一个当时没有公布的众议院席位都被民主党夺得,这让民主党净得40个席位,到底发生了什么?众议院的共和党席次是怎么样在选举后的几周,从勉强的过半一路下跌到最后的199席对民主党的235席?新一届议会开幕的前夕,我们来看看众议院里的共和党为什么败选?还有“上门收集选票”这一现象如何影响了计票的结果?这一期的世事关心,我们来探究2018中期选举后面的真实故事。

美国人民选出了一个新的议会。但是越来越多的人们觉的选举的过程有问题。
The American people elected a new Congress, but an increasing percentage of them think there is a problem with how it was done.

肖恩·斯蒂尔(共和党全国代表大会加州代表):“有陌生人上门收走了人们填好的选票,我们不清楚这些选票的去向。”
Shawn Steel: “They fill out a ballot at home, and then a stranger shows up and asks for their ballot. And so we don’t know what happens to that ballot. ”

乔治·布劳恩(哥伦比亚特区执业律师):“共和党在加州橙县的14个选区中,有7个选区一开始还领先,但是由于这个原因后来选情急转直下,反倒输了五六千票。”
George Braun: “14 districts in California in Orange County, 7 of them went – were ahead on election day, when 100 percent of the ballots had been counted, all of a sudden lost by 5-, 6,000 votes after the election because of this thing. ”

Will the presidential election process be fair in 2020?
2020年的总统选举会是公平的吗?

乔治·布劳恩(哥伦比亚特区执业律师):“在加州得手之后,民主党会采用同样的办法去运作2020年的大选。”
George Braun: “what you’re going to see is they’re going to use the same tactics that they used in California, where it worked. ”

Is America’s democratic system under attack? Can it be fixed?
美国的民主制度正在被攻击吗?能修复吗?

萧茗(Host/Simone Gao): 11月6日的晚上,共和党人意识到他们失去了对众议院的控制。但是可以挽回颜面的是,民主党一直在宣传的2018中期选举的‘蓝色浪潮’并没有实现。由于计票需时较长,6日晚上选举结束的时候,民主党在众议院里的实得席次还没有过半,还有一些选区仍在计票。现在,中期选举过去六周,基本上每一个当时没有公布的众议院席位都被民主党夺得,这让民主党净得了40个席位。到底发生了什么?众议院的共和党席次是怎么样在选举后的几周,从勉强过半一路下跌到最后的199席对民主党的235席?新一届议会开幕的前夕,我们来看看众议院里的共和党为什么败选,还有‘上门收集选票’这一现象如何影响了计票的结果。这一期的《世事关心》,我们来探究一下2018中期选举后面的真实故事。
On the night of November 6, Republicans knew they lost control of the House of Representatives. But one saving grace is that the‘blue wave’ Democrats touted going into the 2018 midterms did not realize. Technically, at the end of the night, Democrats could not confirm they won at least 23 seats, and others were still pending. Now, six weeks after the election, in virtually every pending House contest, the Democratic candidate was declared the winner, giving House Democrats a net gain of 40 seats. What happened? How did House Republicans go from barely holding on to the lower chamber of Congress to going into the new congressional session with 199 seats to the Democrat’s 235 seats in the weeks after the election was over. On the eve of the new congressional session, we will look at why House Republicans lost the confidence of the American people and what role‘ballot-harvesting’played after the polls closed. Let’s explore the true story behind the 2018 midterms in this episode of《 Zooming In》.

第一部分:加州共和党失掉半数席位
Part One: California Republicans Lose Half Their Seats

1968年到1988年之间的5次总统选举中,加州投了共和党候选人的票。甚至曾经有说法,说共和党对加州的掌控,是共和党在选举人团中的保险。加州共和党的核心在橙县,这里有大片的农田、海滩、有洛杉矶和圣地亚哥之间的大量农业,这里是迪士尼的家,也是尼克松总统的出生地,还是他的总统图书馆所在地。2018年的中期选举,民主党将橙县的五个众议院共和党席位完全翻转,来了个大扫荡。
In the five presidential elections between 1968 and 1988, California voted for the Republican candidate. There was even talk that California Republican dominance of the Golden State was part of the GOP’s lock on the electoral college. The heart of the Republican Party in California was Orange County. It is a vast stretch of farms, beaches and a legacy of agriculture between Los Angeles and San Diego. It is the home of Disneyland, but also the birthplace of President Richard Nixon and the site of his presidential library. In the 2018 midterms, the Democrats flipped the five seats in Orange County still held by the GOP, making it a clean sweep.

投票当天,加州的52个众议院席位有39个民主党和14个共和党。到了一月,数字会变成45个民主党和8个共和党。
On Election Day, the state’s 52-seat delegation had 39 Democrats and 14 Republicans. In January, it will be 45 Democrats and 8 Republicans.

肖恩·斯蒂尔, 加州共和党前主席,告诉我们说,共和党将回击所谓的民主党的“蓝色浪潮”。在投票的前几天,民调还显示共和党仍然能稳住局面。
Shawn Steel, the former chairman of the California Republican Party, told Zooming In that, despite the talk of a blue wave, Republicans were fighting back. In the days before the polls closed, polling showed the Republicans were still holding on.

肖恩·斯蒂尔(共和党全国代表大会加州代表):“民主党人必须从共和党人手里夺得7席。加州的共和党人在众议院里占14席,民主党想赢得其中7席,但是他们做不到。现在我可以说,他们肯定能夺得1席,有可能再增加最多3席,所以加州不会成为民主党获取众议院多数的突破口。”
“They would have to win half the Republican delegation. There’s 14 Republicans. They’re targeting seven. They will not win seven. Today, I would say they will win one for sure, and three are undecided. So they’re not going to get enough from California to conquer the House.”

萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):“肖恩·斯蒂尔先生在2001年到2003年间担任加州共和党主席。他现在是共和党全国委员会委员,他和我们一起来回顾2018年中期选举对共和党的影响。”
“Shawn Steel was the chairman of the California Republican Party from 2001 to 2003. He is now a national committeeman from the state. He joins us now to look back at how the 2018 midterms played out for his party.”

萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):“感谢您和我们一起做节目。上次我们谈的时候,刚好是中期选举之前,您对共和党的前景还比较看好。现在,新的议会就要开幕了,共和党在本次选举中表现不佳。但是选举当天的结果,和选举结束6星期之后的结果仍然是有很大差异。您怎么看共和党候选人在后续计票过程中的失利?”
“ Thank you for coming on with us, Shawn. The last time we spoke, it was right before the midterm election, and you were optimistic about Republican prospects. Now, as we are about to begin a new congressional session, there is no way to say the GOP did well. But there is still a big difference between what it looked like by the end of the election night and six weeks later. Tell me when you realized that all the late counts were going against the Republicans?”

肖恩·斯蒂尔(共和党全国代表大会加州代表):“民主党更改了投票过程。原来是选民在选举日到投票站投票,在美国绝大多数地方都是如此。但是加州不一样。你到投票站去投票,到了大概凌晨两点的时候人们就知道谁赢了。可悲的是,在加州,要选举之后两周,你才知道谁是真的赢家。这叫做延时计票。延时计票给舞弊创造了条件,有很多不同的投票方式,很多选票来的非常、非常的晚。我们还有这个新机制,叫做‘上门收集选票’。这意思是专门的人可以一家家的收集选票,然后他们自己把选票交上去,这引起很大争议。在北卡州,一个共和党候选人被指控进行‘上门收集选票’,他有可能失去他的席位。但是在加州这么做,这个民主党州,就不会有任何专业的调查,尽管有一些私人的调查。任何时候你把选票给了陌生人,结果都不会好。”
Shawn Steel: “Democrats have reinvented voting. It used to be you go to vote on election day, and this is where it’s true in most of America, but California’s different. But you used to go and vote, and about 2 o’clock in the morning on a close race you found out who won. Sadly, in California, you find out who the real winner is about two weeks after the election. It’s called a late count. Well, late count means that there’s lots of deals going on, lots of different ways to vote, lots of ballots coming in very, very late. And we have this new mechanism called ballot harvesting. That means professional people can go door-to-door, get ballots, and then turn them in themselves. And that causes a great deal of controversy. In North Carolina, a Republican is accused of ballot harvesting, and he may lose his seat. But the ballot harvesting in California, it’s a Democrat state, there’s not going to be any professional investigation, although there’s some private investigations. Whenever you give your ballot to a stranger, there’s nothing good that can come out of that.”

萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):“在您回顾中期选举的一篇文章里,您说没有选举舞弊的必要。民主党知道破坏选民资格审查法律比争取选票更容易。请您解释一下。”
“ In one of your articles reflecting on the midterms, you said there was no need for voter fraud. Democrats know it’s easier to erode voter integrity laws than to stuff ballot boxes. Explain this to me, please.”

肖恩·斯蒂尔(共和党全国代表大会加州代表):“意思是这样的,过去在芝加哥,这个曾经是世界上最腐败的城市之一,有死人定期参与投票。数以千计的死人参与投票,这真是奇迹,这简直是宗教里的故事。其实是有活人装成死人、装成一个已经死去的投票人投票。所以会有人在不同的选区投票多次。那是老的欺诈办法,今天又不一样了。现在人们是注册了要投票的。他们在家里填好了选票,然后一个陌生人上门来了,收走你的选票。我们不知道那张选票最终会被如何处理,选票一旦到了陌生人手里,就好像进入了黑箱。比如说,共和党被指控拿了民主党的选票,但却不送给投票站。在加州,好像是有好几个收集选票的人自己填写选票,自己用信封封好,选举那天一下子都送去。有的选区在同一天收到超过一千张这样的选票,而这些票都是可以在几个星期前由投票人自己邮寄的。这既可疑,又让人担忧。”
Shawn Steel: “Well, it means – the old idea of Chicago, which is one of the most corrupt cities in the world, you would have dead people voting regularly. Thousands of dead people would vote. It was a miracle. It was like a religious experience. The trouble is you had live people pretending to be a dead – pretending to be a voter who was actually dead. So you’d have people showing up multiple times in different precincts to vote. That’s the old-fashioned fraud. Today it’s different. Now you have people that are registered to vote. They fill out a ballot at home, and then a stranger shows up and asks for their ballot. And so we don’t know what happens to that ballot. Once it’s in the hands of a stranger, he can do anything he wants with it. For example, the Republicans are accused of taking ballots from Democrats and not even having them vote, not turning them in. In California, it looks like several of these ballot harvesters were actually writing in the votes themselves, sealing the envelopes themselves, and then turning them in all at once on election day. Some precincts got over a thousand of these ballots on the same day of people that could have mailed them weeks earlier. It’s very suspicious and uncomfortable. ”

萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):“您能不能给我们分享一下你和落选的候选人的谈话?他们关于选举和结果有什么感受?”
“ Can you share with us a conversation with a candidate or someone in one of the defeated campaigns? What did they tell you about how they felt about the campaign and the results?”

肖恩·斯蒂尔(共和党全国代表大会加州代表):“我和他们都聊过:Rohrabacher众议员、Walters众议员、候选人Kim,他们都仅仅输了几个百分点。没有人预料到‘上门收集选票’这种事,这是加州的新玩意,没有人理解这个新的投票办法对选举结果影响这么大。在选举当天,Rohrabacher的选情还持平,Kim是在她的橙县选区领先14个百分点,Walters领先6个百分点。所以我们想Rohrabacher可能会有困难。根本没有料到另外两位——Walters很受欢迎,很勤奋,而Kim,像明星一样,根本不可能输。但是一天天过去,这些晚到的选票送来了,结果就变了。所以这是一个新的技术,共和党人需要适应和学习的。在绝大多数州,‘上门收集选票’是不可以的。事实上,德州修改了法律,这么做是违法的。还有些州禁止这样做,如果你拿了陌生人的选票,你会进监狱,但是在加州则是完全相反,这对民主党很有利。”
Shawn Steel:“ I talked to all of them: Congressman Rohrabacher, Congresswoman Mimi Walters, Young Kim, a candidate. They all lost by just a few percentage points. Nobody anticipated ballot harvesting. It’s a new animal, a new product in California. Nobody understood how big and powerful of a tool it is for getting the extra votes to win. Remember, on election night Dana Rohrabacher was 50-50, Young Kim was 14 points ahead in her district in Orange County, and Mimi Walters was ahead by 6 points. So we thought that Rohrabacher might be in trouble. Never dreamed that — Mimi Walters was popular, hard-working, and Young Kim, who’s a star, would ever lose. But day after day, a couple of weeks would go by and all these late ballots came in and changed the outcome. So it’s a new technique that Republicans have to learn and adapt. Most states you cannot do ballot harvesting. As a matter of fact, in Texas they changed the law. It’s illegal to ballot harvest in Texas. And other states that have prohibited, if you take some stranger’s ballot, you can go to jail. But in California, it’s the very opposite. It’s great for Democrats. ”

下一节,民主党和共和党采用不同的策略。他们的策略会影响2020年选举吗?
Coming up, Democrats and Republicans played different games. Will their strategies affect how voters vote in the 2020 elections?

第二部分: 民主党主动出击
Part Two: Democrats Went on Offense

麦克·彭斯:“我非常荣幸地向各位介绍美利坚合众国当选总统唐纳德·特朗普。”
Mike Pence:“ It is my high honor and distinct privilege to introduce to you, the President Elect of the United States of America, Donald Trump.”

自从民主党人一觉醒来,得知纽约房地产大亨唐纳德·川普被选为总统之后,他们就开始想方设法煽动己方选民的情绪,期望通过提高投票率来赢得2018年的众议院选战。事实证明,民主党人是成功的 。在非总统选举年,选民的参与度通常会下降。2018年,民主党的选民参与度下降了4%,共和党则下降了20%。
From the morning Democrats woke up to learn that New York real estate developer Donald Trump was elected president, the 2018 battle for control of the House of Representatives turned on whether Democrats could sustain their passion and bring their voters to the polls. It turned out, they were successful. In non-presidential election years, there is a routine drop off in voter participation. In 2018, the drop off for the Democrats was 4%. It was 20% for Republicans.

不仅仅选民的热情在降低。在2018年中期选举中,有39个众议院席位没有共和党候选人。他们的对手(民主党)则有完全不同的表现。民主党对待选举的态度是抓住每一个机会,主动出击,而不是消极防御。在2017年弗吉尼亚的特别选举中,他们首次试验了这种“全方位挑战”的策略。几十年来第一次,民主党在全部100个州议会选区都推出了候选人。此前弗吉尼亚州的共和党人在有些选区从未遇到过对手,这次通过向他们施压,民主党在州议会里多得了15个席位,共和党仅保住了51比49的微弱多数。基于弗吉尼亚的成功,民主党把这个策略推向全国。今年年初两党都宣布要主动出击。共和党表示他们要夺下原来由民主党控制的36个席位。与此同时,民主党则宣称要夺下101个原来由共和党控制的席位。2018年所有民主党籍的现任众议员全部获得连任。
Lowered enthusiasm does not just apply to voters. For the 2018 midterm elections, 39 House seats did not have a Republican candidate on the ballot. Their counterparts were obviously playing another game. Instead of treating their seats as a fortress, Democrats went on offense. They field-tested this “challenge everywhere and everyone” strategy in Virginia’s off-cycle election in 2017. For the first time in decades, Democrats had a candidate on the ballot for all 100 assembly seats. By pressing Virginia Republicans, some who had never dealt with a challenger, Democrats picked up 15 seats, leaving the GOP with a bleak 51-to-49 majority.
Based on Virginia’s success, the Democrats scaled it up nationally.At the beginning of the year, both parties announced the incumbents they were targeting. Republicans released a list of 36 Democratic held targets. Meanwhile, the Democrats had a list of 101 targeted seats. Not a single House Democratic incumbent lost in 2018.

萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):这些错误是共和党领导者们在战略层面上犯下的吗?以下是肖恩·斯蒂尔先生的看法。
Are these mistakes by Republican leadership on a strategic level? Here is what Shawn Steel has to say.

萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):“展望2020年,2018年留给我们的最大教训是什么?”
“Going into 2020, what is the biggest lesson you learned from 2018?”

肖恩·斯蒂尔(共和党全国代表大会加州代表):“当然,首先,我们要明白过去很多人没有参与投票。现在我们看到人们对投票的兴趣比以往任何时候都大,这是一件好事。我们不在乎,或者说,我不在乎参与投票的人属于哪个党派。不好的是,如果人们参与投票,但是只是献出选票,把他们的选票交给一个陌生人,这应该被劝阻。应该鼓励他们自己去投票站投票。这是一个很大的教训。我们希望大家参与投票,但是得自己亲自去做。以确保你的选票的安全,而不是被一些陌生人左右。其次,共和党人需要更多和少数族裔打交道,需要比之前更重视。少数族裔需要明白,共和党人是他们实现真正繁荣的最明智、最安全的选择。否则,民主党主政的美国就是一个潜在的朝鲜。或者是一个委内瑞拉,一个极少数人富裕和得益的社会主义国家。”
Shawn Steel:“ Well, first of all, we have to understand that it used to be a lot of people didn’t vote. We’re seeing that there’s much more interest in voting than ever before, and that’s a good thing. We don’t – I don’t care what party they’re from if people show up and vote. The bad thing is that, if people vote, but they give their — sacrifice, they give away their ballot to a stranger, that should be discouraged. They should be encouraged to go to the polls themselves to vote. So that’s a big lesson. We want people to vote, but do it yourself. Make sure that your vote is safe, not in some stranger’s pocket. Secondly, Republicans have a lot more work to do with minorities, more than ever. And minorities need to understand that Republicans are their best and safest bet for real prosperity, or otherwise they’re looking at a potential North Korea. They’re looking at a Venezuela, a socialist state where very few people prosper or benefit. ”

萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):“除了在选民诚信法上做出妥协,共和党领导层是否在其它方面也有误判?”
“ Other than compromise on voter integrity laws, did Republican leadership miscalculate in other areas?”

肖恩·斯蒂尔(共和党全国代表大会加州代表):“当然,我想说,失败总是会有误判的因素,那么你必须搞清楚原由。共和党是以非常小的差距输掉了选举。这不是人民起义导致共和党输掉20或30个百分点。这是1% 、2%、 3%的差距。外加的原因还有,民主党控制着所谓的‘黑钱’,他们有几个亿万富翁资助这个。富有的、自由派的、左翼的亿万富翁,像彭博公司的Michael Bloomberg和Tom Steyer,他们投入了大量资金,数亿美元到这些政治行动委员会。我们将在一月份知道他们花了多少钱。据报道,到目前为止,民主党在加州花了2亿美元夺得7个国会席位。现在,想像一下,2亿美元这个惊人的数字,这么多钱,甚至足够你操纵中欧多个国家的政治选举,这就是赤裸裸的力量。我们从未料想民主党会在加州选举中投入这么多钱。现在,共和党人可不小气,他们有6000万美元,但是你可能看到这是三比一的悬殊比例。我们没想到亿万富翁们会以如此明目张胆的方式介入,这对我们是一个很好的教训。你知道,你谈论的党有很多钱、经济实力很强,关键是有了这些钱,他们可以横行无忌,实实在在的改变选举的结果。”
Shawn Steel: “Well, I’ll tell you, miscalculation is always when you lose, and you have to study everything. And the Republicans lost by very small margins. So it wasn’t like a popular uprising where Republicans lost by 20 or 30 percentage points. It was 1 percent, 2 percent, 3 percent. But what also happened is that the Democrats have mastered what’s called dark money. They have several billionaires funding this, wealthy, liberal, left-wing billionaires like Michael Bloomberg of Bloomberg Incorporated, and Tom Steyer. They put in lots of money, hundreds of millions of dollars in these political action committees. And we’re going to find out in January how much money they spent. So far, what’s been reported, the Democrats spent 200 million dollars to take over seven congressional seats. Now, think about that: 200 million dollars is an astonishing number. And that’s so much money that you could actually buy countries in central Europe with that, political elections. It’s real naked power. But for California, we never anticipated that much money. Now, the Republicans weren’t cheap. They had 60 million dollars on their side, but you can see there’s a three-to-one advantage on that. So we didn’t expect the billionaires to come in in such a big, bold way. It’s a very good lesson for us. You know, you talk about the party of big money and big wealth, the key is that with big money you can go ahead and really change outcomes of elections.”

萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):“今后您会如何应对民主党在竞选资金上的优势?”
“ How do you respond to Democrats’ big money in the future?”

肖恩·斯蒂尔(共和党全国代表大会加州代表):“当然,我们知道加州的民主党今后不会再有那么多钱。因为那些亿万富翁,有两位,我提到过的两位,旧金山的Tom Steyer和纽约的Bloomberg,他们俩都在竞选总统,这是他们在本次中期选举中投入那么多钱的原因,未来他们会把钱投入到他们的总统竞选中。所以民主党将有两位亿万富翁参加竞选,可能还有其他的18个人。所以他们会把资金投入在自己的初选中,互相争斗,互相攻击,最后就看谁能幸运的获得党的提名。这么大笔的资金投入众议员选举,可能只是二十年一次的现象。我不敢说,我也不相信在加州这种七个席位花费两亿美元的事情还会出现。过去一个国会席位花一百万都是一件大事。‘两亿’,这个数字在美国政治史上前所未有。”
Shawn Steel: “Well, we know that that big money is not going to be available for the Democrats in California because those billionaires, two of them, the two ones that I mentioned, Tom Steyer of San Francisco and Bloomberg of New York, they’re both running for president. That’s why they put so much money in. They’re going to put their money in their presidential campaigns. So the Democrats are going to have two billionaires running and maybe 18 other people. So they’re going to be tied up in their own primary fighting each other and attacking each other and trying to see who their nominee is going to be. So maybe this amount of money is just once in a 20-year phenomena. I don’t know. I don’t think we’re going to see in California that kind of 200 million dollars for seven congressional seats. It used to be a big deal if you had a million dollars for a congressional seat. But 200 is just a number we’ve never seen in American politics ever in our history.”

接下来,民主党采取了什么策略呢?在2020年的选举中他们能凭借同样策略赢得选举吗?
Coming up, what ground game have democrats played? Will they be able to win the 2020 election by playing the same game?

萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):共和党的失误原本不致命。因为在投票前公布的民调结果显示,共和党在众议院只会丢掉20-25席,而不是后来的40席。民主党通过上门催票,成功的把中期选举的投票率拉高到接近总统大选的水平。
Despite strategic mistakes, the fact remains that going into the midterm elections, polling showed the Republicans losing 20-to-25 seats, not 40. So that brings us back to how Democrats operated on the ground to generate a midterm turnout that nearly matched their presidential turnout.

15年前,共和党工作人员组建了一些名为“72小时”的催票团队。他们由专门的竞选人员组成,这些人会在投票日前三天突然加入竞选活动,事先无预告。他们的催票活动激发了选民的选举热情,革新了选举的运作模式。
Fifteen years ago, Republican operatives developed 72-hour teams. They were made up of specialized campaign staffers who would swoop into a campaign in the last three days before voters went to the polls. These teams revolutionized electioneering as they came in without warning and ramped up enthusiasm with get-out-the-vote efforts.

为了抗衡这些“72小时”团队,民主党修改了投票法。本来选民如果因故在选举日去不了投票站,可以提前投票。但新法律允许选民“无理由”提前投票。提前投票改变了选举规律,民主党组建了为期30天的团队,而不是72小时的团队。在选举前几周,党派工作人员可以动员选民去投票站投票,然后再去反复回访,而不是仅在选举日当天短短的12小时内。提前投票改变了竞选策略,甚至改变了民调内容,因为民意调查者现在必须询问选民是否已经投了票。剩下的障碍是,在提前投票的过程中,工作人员仍需要让选民亲自去投票站投票。
To counter these 72-hour teams, Democrats worked to change voting laws. Early absentee voting was always available to voters with valid reasons for not voting on Election Day. But the new laws allowed for “no excuse” early voting.Early voting changed the dynamic. Instead of 72-hour teams, Democrats developed 30-day teams. Weeks before an election, party operatives could mobilize voters to get to polls with time to follow-up and repeatedly get back to them — instead of the short 12-hour window on Election Day.Early voting has changed campaign strategy and even polling as pollsters now have to ask respondents if they have already cast their vote. The remaining hurdle was that, in early voting, operatives still had to get voters physically to the polls.

在2018年的中期选举中,我们首次看到民主党人使用一种大规模混合策略,称为上门收集选票,也是从选民那里提前收集选票,这样他们就不用去投票站了。
In the 2018 midterms, for the first time, we saw Democrats use a large-scale hybrid tactic called ballot harvesting. Ballot harvesting is the early collection of ballots from voters, so that they do not have to travel to the polling station.

据加州国务卿办公室称,在2014年上一次中期选举中,加州选民提交了450万张缺席选票,今年有830万张。
According to the California Secretary of State’s office, during the last midterm election in 2014, California voters turned in 4.5 million absentee ballots. This year, there were 8.3 million.

萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):乔治·布劳恩先生是哥伦比亚特区的执业律师,最高法院律师协会会员。他曾任最高法院大法官桑德拉·奥康纳的助手;小布什总统的白宫法律顾问。他多年来一直与其他共和党律师一道,志愿从事选举研究工作。乔治的专长领域是选举舞弊和民主党选举手法。我征询了他关于在加州上门收集选票和选举舞弊的意见。
George Braun is a Washington D.C. attorney and a member of the Supreme Court bar. George was a law clerk for Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, and he also worked as White House lawyer for President George W. Bush. For many years, he has been part of a group of Republican lawyers who volunteer as election observers. George is an expert in voter fraud and Democratic tactics. I asked him about ballot harvesting and voter fraud in California.

萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):“为什么您认为缺席投票对民主党人更有利呢?”
“So George, why did absentee ballots benefit Democrats more?”

乔治·布劳恩(哥伦比亚特区执业律师):“在加州,因为他们没有,他们只在部分地区上门收集选票。在网上有个视频,一个叫露露的女孩来到一户人家。开门的夫妇俩都是共和党人,大门上的摄像头记录了整个过程。他们的女儿是民主党人。她说她提供一项收选票的服务,可以帮助你,但是她不说自己属于哪个组织。她只收走了夫妇俩的选票。因为她没在任何机构注册,不是注册民意调查员,她没在州政府注册过,我们知道她只是一名政治工作人员。在加州唯一的规定是你做这件事不能拿报酬,但谁会留意呢?我的疑问是,在今年中期选举开票过程中,共和党候选人在加州橙县14个国会选区中的7个,一开始都是领先的。但是到后来全部选票开完之后,突然发现反而输了五、六千票。就是因为这个原因。这是非常阴险的选举舞弊,在阿拉巴马州参议员补选中,民主党对摩尔法官也使用了与俄罗斯同样的舞弊手法,他们已经承认了。你可以看到在很多州,特别是乔治亚州,民主党从外州拉年轻人、大学生,给他们学生证让其投票。我们无法鉴定学生证的真伪,无法确认投票人的身份。在乔治亚州州长选举中,民主党用公共汽车运进这么多外人,事实上剥夺了当地选民的选举权。乔治亚州政府里的民主党人原来规定,定期复核选民的个人信息,三年不投票,就要重新登记才能获得选民资格。不然就无法参加选举。由于过世等原因,每隔一段时间要更新在册选民的信息,防止被人盗用。过去我的户籍在加州圣地亚哥,现在在亚利桑那的Yuma。我已经两次写信更新自己的选民信息,但是这次中期选举,我依然在首都华盛顿收到了一张加州的缺席选票,尽管我是亚利桑那州Yuma市的在册选民。我销毁了那张选票,我还是回到Yuma市投的票。但是事实上我可以在两个州投票。”
George Braun: “Well, in California, because of the fact that they didn’t – they basically harvested just those places. On the internet you can see a girl by the name of Lulu going to a house. The parents who answered the door and had a camera on her because of the doorbell camera, were Republicans. The daughter was a Democrat. And she said that this was a service to pick up the ballot and we can help you and — but she wouldn’t say who she was a service by. And she didn’t ask for anybody else’s ballots in the house. And since she’s not registered with anybody, she’s not a registered poll watcher, she’s not a registered person from the state, she’s just a political operative that we know. The only rule in California is you can’t be paid to do this. But who’s going to watch that one? So my question is, is that when they come in — and when you see 14 districts in California in Orange County, 7 of them went – were ahead on election day, when 100 percent of the ballots had been counted, all of a sudden lost by 5-, 6,000 votes after the election because of this thing. You’re seeing insidious voter fraud. And what we saw down in the special election for the Senate, Ron [sic] Moore, we now know that the Democrats were doing the same thing as what the Russians were accused of. They’ve admitted it. You saw, in numerous states,  where – especially Georgia where they had – they brought people in from other states to vote, young people, college students and everything else, and gave them college IDs to vote. We don’t know that that college ID, other than it went for somebody’s name, we don’t know that person is really the person that goes through it. But when you bus in that many people – now, the Georgia governor’s race where she said that she was, you know, they disenfranchised and did a number of other things, that was all under the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party originally came up with all these rules that every three years, if you haven’t voted, they contact you to see whether or not you’re still in the state, haven’t moved someplace else, and then will take your vote away. Then you don’t get to vote. There was – or if you died, if you’re listed on there, we have to purge a number of these so that people don’t go through it. I used to vote in San Diego, California. I now vote in Yuma, Arizona. But when I cancelled my ballot in California – I’ve cancelled it twice. But this last election I got one in the mail saying that – you know, I shredded it, but the thing is, that even though I cancelled it in writing twice, they still sent me an absentee ballot here in Washington D.C., even though I’m registered in Arizona now. And went back and actually went through it. So if I wanted to, I could have voted in both states.”

萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):“展望2020年大选,这类手法,不管合法还是非法,是否会影响到选举的结果?”
“ Going into 2020, how will these tactics, legal or illegal, affect the upcoming presidential election?”

乔治·布劳恩(哥伦比亚特区执业律师):“你会看到,他们会使用在加州奏过效的手法。他们基本上一直尝试不同的手法,针对像佛罗里达州那样的大的摇摆州。在2016选举的时候,这个事就是那些阴招之一。有一段时间突然一下子开票工作就停了,原因之一是他们在研究如何在特定地区拿到更多选票,一直是这样。如果尼克松在1960年选举中争一下,他可能就是总统了,但是他不想让政府和国家经历那些。2001年,当布什和戈尔官司打到最高法院, 民主党只想重新统计特定的县的票。最高法院说你要是想重新计票,就重新统计所有县的票。那是佛罗里达的法律,那是一开始的判决,但是实际发生的却是,他们规定了重新计票的截止日,那一天的统计数字就是最终的计票结果,你不能无休止的重新计票。就像是在明尼苏达州,当Al Franken竞选的时候,他不断重新计票,弄了27次。他输了26次,第27次赢了, 成了参议员。你要重新计票多少次呢?为什么不这样规定:因为你已经输了26次,所以第27的统计结果就不算了呢?就像有的体育比赛中采用5局3胜制一样。很多初选中也出现过这种现象,除非改变重新计票办法,否则这个问题还将存在。希拉里·克林顿搞过9次重新计票,她都赢了。不可思议,你知道这就像连续猜中9次抛硬币一样,非常非常小的概率。”
George Braun: “Well, what you’re going to see is they’re going to use the same tactics that they used in California, where it worked, Georgia. They basically have been trying different tactics where they can see where you have large – Florida, they’re going to use those in the swing states that they need. That’s one of the things that was insidious when you’re watching the returns in 2016. All of a sudden there was no returns for a while that were released. Well, one of the reasons is because they’re trying to figure out where to get more votes where they need them. And this has been going on. Had Richard Nixon fought the election in 1960, he would have been president. But he didn’t want to put the government, the country through that. In 2001 when Bush v. Gore went to the Supreme Court, the Democrats only wanted to count specific counties, recount specific counties. And the Supreme Court said you have to recount all of them if you’re going to recount them. That’s the law in Florida. And when – and that was the original decision that came down. But what actually happened was they ran into the final part which was, whether you like it or not, by this day all ballots had to be turned in. And that’s when we decide. You can’t just keep recounting the vote. And it’s, as we’ve seen, in Minnesota when Al Franken ran, if you continued to recount, they did the recount 27 times, he lost 26 times. He won the 27th time and became a senator. How many times do you recount? And why doesn’t it come down to, well, you lost 26 times, the 27th one shouldn’t matter. You know, three out of five, that kind of a thing. And you still got to remember, as far as it still goes, it’s come down, in a lot of elections, during the primaries. Hillary Clinton had a coin flip on nine different occasions. Unbelievably, she won the coin flip in all nine times. Do you know what the odds are that you would win a coin flip nine continuous times? Astronomical. ”

萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):“您认为共和党应如何操作2020大选?他们需要学民主党的办法吗?还是加强执法或者是寻求修法?”
“ What are your suggestions to Republicans for 2020? Should they copy the Democratic tactics or try to either enforce or change the laws?”

乔治·布劳恩(哥伦比亚特区执业律师):“首先,我们必须修改法律,改变缺席选票的计算方式。第二件应该有所改变的是,每个州都必须有一个选票监管体系。你不能凭空出现一堆选票,像在佛罗里达州的布罗沃德县那样,我们在汽车里、机场找到选票,在教室里找到一箱箱的选票。为什么在这个县会出现选票满天飞的现象?如果出现来源不明的选票,就应该立即将其销毁,如果追回了丢失的选票,就要找到责任人。因为我在佛罗里达工作时,投票结束的时候是7点——选区结束投票的时候是7点,我在7点钟确定最后一名可以投票的选民。如果你排在那个人前面,那我们就一定会让你投票,哪怕等到8,9点钟,但是那个人是最后一个投票的人。当他投票的时候,这个投票点的结果就应该出来了。今年的中期选举过程让人无语,在20分钟内,你就得知道每个选区有多少人投票。如果不能统计出这个数据,那就有问题了。所以我们看到的是,选民数字突然急剧上升。看, 这么多人来投票了,谁能知道的那么准?共和党人需要做的就是在那个时候计算每一张选票。现在,我们不该允许选民在选举日当天注册、当天投票。我们必须限制临时选票的适用范围。而且,更重要的是,我们必须采取措施对上门催票加以限制。因为在这个国家,不投票权和投票权同样重要。”
George Braun: “Well, first off, we’ve got to change the laws as far as how an absentee ballot is counted. And second thing is, there should be a change – every single state has to have a chain of custody to where you can’t just all of a sudden have a whole bunch of ballots show up – or find, like we did in Broward County in Florida, where we’re finding ballots in the back of cars, at the airport, we’re finding boxes of ballots in classrooms. Why are we finding ballots all over this place? If they get outside of the chain of command, they should immediately be destroyed. And if they got outside of the thing, who let it get outside. Because of the fact that, when I was working in Florida, it’s 7 o’clock when the ballot closed – I mean, when the precinct closed balloting. I put somebody in line, the last person there at 7 o’clock. If you were in line before that person at 7 o’clock, you got to vote whether or not it was 8 o’clock or 9 o’clock by the time we finally got to you. But that person was the last person. At that time, there should have been a number. And what happened in 2018 was the gal couldn’t say. Within 20 minutes, you’re required to be able to tell how many people voted at each precinct. If you can’t give that, there’s a problem. And so what we saw is because – and then all of a sudden the numbers would go up. Well, this many people voted. Well, how do we know that? And what the Republicans need to do is to count every single ballot at that time. Now, we’ve got to stop the idea that you can register on the day of the vote. We’ve got to do something about this provisional ballots. And, more importantly, we’ve got to do something about the idea that somebody’s going to be knocking on somebody’s door saying you need to vote. Because the right not to vote in this country is just as important as the right to vote.”

萧茗(Host/Simone Gao):我相信共和党人会从中期选举中总结经验,争取在2020年的大选中取得更好的成绩。但是我们都知道:光有战术还不行。对两党来说,如何说服选民接受自己的基本理念,才是选举成败的关键。我们在今后会更多的讨论这个问题。谢谢收看《世事关心》。请在脸书上支持我们,并订阅我们的YouTube频道《Zooming In with Simone Gao》。节日快乐!
I believe Republicans will learn the lessons from the 2018 midterm elections and do better in 2020. But we should keep one important thing in mind: tactics can’t get us too far. For both parties, regaining the soul of the party and winning people’s hearts with those principles is the ultimate strategy. I hope leading to 2020, we will have more discussion on those matters. Thanks for watching《 Zooming In》. Please like our Facebook page and subscribe to our YouTube channel at “Zooming In with Simone Gao” .Happy Holidays!


End

相关文章
评论