【新唐人2018年12月25日訊】【世事關心】上門收集選票 2018的黑幕 2020的隱憂:中期選舉過去六週後,基本上每一個當時沒有公佈的眾議院席位都被民主黨奪得,這讓民主黨淨得40個席位,到底發生了什麼?眾議院的共和黨席次是怎麼樣在選舉後的幾週,從勉強的過半一路下跌到最後的199席對民主黨的235席?新一屆議會開幕的前夕,我們來看看眾議院裡的共和黨為什麼敗選?還有「上門收集選票」這一現象如何影響了計票的結果?這一期的世事關心,我們來探究2018中期選舉後面的真實故事。

美國人民選出了一個新的議會。但是越來越多的人們覺的選舉的過程有問題。
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·斯蒂爾(共和黨全國代表大會加州代表):「有陌生人上門收走了人們填好的選票,我們不清楚這些選票的去向。」
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. ”

喬治·布勞恩(哥倫比亞特區執業律師):「共和黨在加州橙縣的14個選區中,有7個選區一開始還領先,但是由於這個原因後來選情急轉直下,反倒輸了五六千票。」
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年的總統選舉會是公平的嗎?

喬治·布勞恩(哥倫比亞特區執業律師):「在加州得手之後,民主黨會採用同樣的辦法去運作2020年的大選。」
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?
美國的民主制度正在被攻擊嗎?能修復嗎?

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao): 11月6日的晚上,共和黨人意識到他們失去了對眾議院的控制。但是可以挽回顏面的是,民主黨一直在宣傳的2018中期選舉的『藍色浪潮』並沒有實現。由於計票需時較長,6日晚上選舉結束的時候,民主黨在眾議院裡的實得席次還沒有過半,還有一些選區仍在計票。現在,中期選舉過去六週,基本上每一個當時沒有公佈的眾議院席位都被民主黨奪得,這讓民主黨淨得了40個席位。到底發生了什麼?眾議院的共和黨席次是怎麼樣在選舉後的幾週,從勉強過半一路下跌到最後的199席對民主黨的235席?新一屆議會開幕的前夕,我們來看看眾議院裡的共和黨為什麼敗選,還有『上門收集選票』這一現象如何影響了計票的結果。這一期的《世事關心》,我們來探究一下2018中期選舉後面的真實故事。
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:加州共和黨失掉半數席位
Part One: California Republicans Lose Half Their Seats

1968年到1988年之間的5次總統選舉中,加州投了共和黨候選人的票。甚至曾經有說法,說共和黨對加州的掌控,是共和黨在選舉人團中的保險。加州共和黨的核心在橙縣,這裡有大片的農田、海灘、有洛杉磯和聖地亞哥之間的大量農業,這裡是迪士尼的家,也是尼克松總統的出生地,還是他的總統圖書館所在地。2018年的中期選舉,民主黨將橙縣的五個眾議院共和黨席位完全翻轉,來了個大掃蕩。
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.

投票當天,加州的52個眾議院席位有39個民主黨和14個共和黨。到了一月,數字會變成45個民主黨和8個共和黨。
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·斯蒂爾, 加州共和黨前主席,告訴我們說,共和黨將回擊所謂的民主黨的「藍色浪潮」。在投票的前幾天,民調還顯示共和黨仍然能穩住局面。
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·斯蒂爾(共和黨全國代表大會加州代表):「民主黨人必須從共和黨人手裏奪得7席。加州的共和黨人在眾議院裏佔14席,民主黨想贏得其中7席,但是他們做不到。現在我可以說,他們肯定能奪得1席,有可能再增加最多3席,所以加州不會成為民主黨獲取眾議院多數的突破口。」
“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.”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「肖恩·斯蒂爾先生在2001年到2003年間擔任加州共和黨主席。他現在是共和黨全國委員會委員,他和我們一起來回顧2018年中期選舉對共和黨的影響。」
“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.”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「感謝您和我們一起做節目。上次我們談的時候,剛好是中期選舉之前,您對共和黨的前景還比較看好。現在,新的議會就要開幕了,共和黨在本次選舉中表現不佳。但是選舉當天的結果,和選舉結束6星期之後的結果仍然是有很大差異。您怎麼看共和黨候選人在後續計票過程中的失利?」
“ 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·斯蒂爾(共和黨全國代表大會加州代表):「民主黨更改了投票過程。原來是選民在選舉日到投票站投票,在美國絕大多數地方都是如此。但是加州不一樣。你到投票站去投票,到了大概淩晨兩點的時候人們就知道誰贏了。可悲的是,在加州,要選舉之後兩週,你才知道誰是真的贏家。這叫做延時計票。延時計票給舞弊創造了條件,有很多不同的投票方式,很多選票來的非常、非常的晚。我們還有這個新機制,叫做『上門收集選票』。這意思是專門的人可以一家家的收集選票,然後他們自己把選票交上去,這引起很大爭議。在北卡州,一個共和黨候選人被指控進行『上門收集選票』,他有可能失去他的席位。但是在加州這麼做,這個民主黨州,就不會有任何專業的調查,儘管有一些私人的調查。任何時候你把選票給了陌生人,結果都不會好。」
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.”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「在您回顧中期選舉的一篇文章裡,您說沒有選舉舞弊的必要。民主黨知道破壞選民資格審查法律比爭取選票更容易。請您解釋一下。」
“ 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·斯蒂爾(共和黨全國代表大會加州代表):「意思是這樣的,過去在芝加哥,這個曾經是世界上最腐敗的城市之一,有死人定期參與投票。數以千計的死人參與投票,這真是奇蹟,這簡直是宗教裏的故事。其實是有活人裝成死人、裝成一個已經死去的投票人投票。所以會有人在不同的選區投票多次。那是老的欺詐辦法,今天又不一樣了。現在人們是註冊了要投票的。他們在家裡填好了選票,然後一個陌生人上門來了,收走你的選票。我們不知道那張選票最終會被如何處理,選票一旦到了陌生人手裡,就好像進入了黑箱。比如說,共和黨被指控拿了民主黨的選票,但卻不送給投票站。在加州,好像是有好幾個收集選票的人自己填寫選票,自己用信封封好,選舉那天一下子都送去。有的選區在同一天收到超過一千張這樣的選票,而這些票都是可以在幾個星期前由投票人自己郵寄的。這既可疑,又讓人擔憂。」
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. ”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「您能不能給我們分享一下你和落選的候選人的談話?他們關於選舉和結果有什麼感受?」
“ 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·斯蒂爾(共和黨全國代表大會加州代表):「我和他們都聊過:Rohrabacher眾議員、Walters眾議員、候選人Kim,他們都僅僅輸了幾個百分點。沒有人預料到『上門收集選票』這種事,這是加州的新玩意,沒有人理解這個新的投票辦法對選舉結果影響這麼大。在選舉當天,Rohrabacher的選情還持平,Kim是在她的橙縣選區領先14個百分點,Walters領先6個百分點。所以我們想Rohrabacher可能會有困難。根本沒有料到另外兩位——Walters很受歡迎,很勤奮,而Kim,像明星一樣,根本不可能輸。但是一天天過去,這些晚到的選票送來了,結果就變了。所以這是一個新的技術,共和黨人需要適應和學習的。在絕大多數州,『上門收集選票』是不可以的。事實上,德州修改了法律,這麼做是違法的。還有些州禁止這樣做,如果你拿了陌生人的選票,你會進監獄,但是在加州則是完全相反,這對民主黨很有利。」
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. ”

下一節,民主黨和共和黨採用不同的策略。他們的策略會影響2020年選舉嗎?
Coming up, Democrats and Republicans played different games. Will their strategies affect how voters vote in the 2020 elections?

第二部分: 民主黨主動出擊
Part Two: Democrats Went on Offense

麥克·彭斯:「我非常榮幸地向各位介紹美利堅合眾國當選總統唐納德·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.”

自從民主黨人一覺醒來,得知紐約房地產大亨唐納德·川普被選為總統之後,他們就開始想方設法煽動己方選民的情緒,期望通過提高投票率來贏得2018年的眾議院選戰。事實證明,民主黨人是成功的 。在非總統選舉年,選民的參與度通常會下降。2018年,民主黨的選民參與度下降了4%,共和黨則下降了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.

不僅僅選民的熱情在降低。在2018年中期選舉中,有39個衆議院席位沒有共和黨候選人。他們的對手(民主黨)則有完全不同的表現。民主黨對待選舉的態度是抓住每一個機會,主動出擊,而不是消極防禦。在2017年弗吉尼亞的特別選舉中,他們首次試驗了這種「全方位挑戰」的策略。幾十年來第一次,民主黨在全部100個州議會選區都推出了候選人。此前弗吉尼亞州的共和黨人在有些選區從未遇到過對手,這次通過向他們施壓,民主黨在州議會裏多得了15個席位,共和黨僅保住了51比49的微弱多數。基於弗吉尼亞的成功,民主黨把這個策略推向全國。今年年初兩黨都宣布要主動出擊。共和黨表示他們要奪下原來由民主黨控制的36個席位。與此同時,民主黨則宣稱要奪下101個原來由共和黨控制的席位。2018年所有民主黨籍的現任眾議員全部獲得連任。
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.

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):這些錯誤是共和黨領導者們在戰略層面上犯下的嗎?以下是肖恩·斯蒂爾先生的看法。
Are these mistakes by Republican leadership on a strategic level? Here is what Shawn Steel has to say.

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「展望2020年,2018年留給我們的最大教訓是什麼?」
“Going into 2020, what is the biggest lesson you learned from 2018?”

肖恩·斯蒂爾(共和黨全國代表大會加州代表):「當然,首先,我們要明白過去很多人沒有參與投票。現在我們看到人們對投票的興趣比以往任何時候都大,這是一件好事。我們不在乎,或者說,我不在乎參與投票的人屬於哪個黨派。不好的是,如果人們參與投票,但是只是獻出選票,把他們的選票交給一個陌生人,這應該被勸阻。應該鼓勵他們自己去投票站投票。這是一個很大的教訓。我們希望大家參與投票,但是得自己親自去做。以確保你的選票的安全,而不是被一些陌生人左右。其次,共和黨人需要更多和少數族裔打交道,需要比之前更重視。少數族裔需要明白,共和黨人是他們實現真正繁榮的最明智、最安全的選擇。否則,民主黨主政的美國就是一個潛在的朝鮮。或者是一個委內瑞拉,一個極少數人富裕和得益的社會主義國家。」
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. ”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「除了在選民誠信法上做出妥協,共和黨領導層是否在其它方面也有誤判?」
“ Other than compromise on voter integrity laws, did Republican leadership miscalculate in other areas?”

肖恩·斯蒂爾(共和黨全國代表大會加州代表):「當然,我想說,失敗總是會有誤判的因素,那麼你必須搞清楚原由。共和黨是以非常小的差距輸掉了選舉。這不是人民起義導致共和黨輸掉20或30個百分點。這是1% 、2%、 3%的差距。外加的原因還有,民主黨控制著所謂的『黑錢』,他們有幾個億萬富翁資助這個。富有的、自由派的、左翼的億萬富翁,像彭博公司的Michael Bloomberg和Tom Steyer,他們投入了大量資金,數億美元到這些政治行動委員會。我們將在一月份知道他們花了多少錢。據報道,到目前爲止,民主黨在加州花了2億美元奪得7個國會席位。現在,想像一下,2億美元這個驚人的數字,這麼多錢,甚至足夠你操縱中歐多個國家的政治選舉,這就是赤裸裸的力量。我們從未料想民主黨會在加州選舉中投入這麼多錢。現在,共和黨人可不小氣,他們有6000萬美元,但是你可能看到這是三比一的懸殊比例。我們沒想到億萬富翁們會以如此明目張膽的方式介入,這對我們是一個很好的教訓。你知道,你談論的黨有很多錢、經濟實力很強,關鍵是有了這些錢,他們可以橫行無忌,實實在在的改變選舉的結果。」
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.”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「今後您會如何應對民主黨在競選資金上的優勢?」
“ How do you respond to Democrats’ big money in the future?”

肖恩·斯蒂爾(共和黨全國代表大會加州代表):「當然,我們知道加州的民主黨今後不會再有那麼多錢。因為那些億萬富翁,有兩位,我提到過的兩位,舊金山的Tom Steyer和紐約的Bloomberg,他們倆都在競選總統,這是他們在本次中期選舉中投入那麼多錢的原因,未來他們會把錢投入到他們的總統競選中。所以民主黨將有兩位億萬富翁參加競選,可能還有其他的18個人。所以他們會把資金投入在自己的初選中,互相爭鬥,互相攻擊,最後就看誰能幸運的獲得黨的提名。這麼大筆的資金投入眾議員選舉,可能只是二十年一次的現象。我不敢說,我也不相信在加州這種七個席位花費兩億美元的事情還會出現。過去一個國會席位花一百萬都是一件大事。『兩億』,這個數字在美國政治史上前所未有。」
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.”

接下來,民主黨採取了什麼策略呢?在2020年的選舉中他們能憑藉同樣策略贏得選舉嗎?
Coming up, what ground game have democrats played? Will they be able to win the 2020 election by playing the same game?

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):共和黨的失誤原本不致命。因為在投票前公佈的民調結果顯示,共和黨在眾議院只會丟掉20-25席,而不是後來的40席。民主黨通過上門催票,成功的把中期選舉的投票率拉高到接近總統大選的水平。
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,共和黨工作人員組建了一些名為「72小時」的催票團隊。他們由專門的競選人員組成,這些人會在投票日前三天突然加入競選活動,事先無預告。他們的催票活動激發了選民的選舉熱情,革新了選舉的運作模式。
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.

為了抗衡這些「72小時」團隊,民主黨修改了投票法。本來選民如果因故在選舉日去不了投票站,可以提前投票。但新法律允許選民「無理由」提前投票。提前投票改變了選舉規律,民主黨組建了為期30天的團隊,而不是72小時的團隊。在選舉前幾周,黨派工作人員可以動員選民去投票站投票,然後再去反復回訪,而不是僅在選舉日當天短短的12小時內。提前投票改變了競選策略,甚至改變了民調內容,因為民意調查者現在必須詢問選民是否已經投了票。剩下的障礙是,在提前投票的過程中,工作人員仍需要讓選民親自去投票站投票。
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年的中期選舉中,我們首次看到民主黨人使用一種大規模混合策略,稱為上門收集選票,也是從選民那裏提前收集選票,這樣他們就不用去投票站了。
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.

據加州國務卿辦公室稱,在2014年上一次中期選舉中,加州選民提交了450萬張缺席選票,今年有830萬張。
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.

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):喬治·布勞恩先生是哥倫比亞特區的執業律師,最高法院律師協會會員。他曾任最高法院大法官桑德拉·奧康納的助手;小布什總統的白宮法律顧問。他多年來一直與其他共和黨律師一道,誌願從事選舉研究工作。喬治的專長領域是選舉舞弊和民主黨選舉手法。我徵詢了他關於在加州上門收集選票和選舉舞弊的意見。
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.

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「為什麼您認為缺席投票對民主黨人更有利呢?」
“So George, why did absentee ballots benefit Democrats more?”

喬治·布勞恩(哥倫比亞特區執業律師):「在加州,因為他們沒有,他們只在部分地區上門收集選票。在網上有個視頻,一個叫露露的女孩來到一戶人家。開門的夫婦倆都是共和黨人,大門上的攝像頭記錄了整個過程。他們的女兒是民主黨人。她說她提供一項收選票的服務,可以幫助你,但是她不說自己屬於哪個組織。她只收走了夫婦倆的選票。因為她沒在任何機構註冊,不是註冊民意調查員,她沒在州政府註冊過,我們知道她只是一名政治工作人員。在加州唯一的規定是你做這件事不能拿報酬,但誰會留意呢?我的疑問是,在今年中期選舉開票過程中,共和黨候選人在加州橙縣14個國會選區中的7個,一開始都是領先的。但是到後來全部選票開完之後,突然發現反而輸了五、六千票。就是因為這個原因。這是非常陰險的選舉舞弊,在阿拉巴馬州參議員補選中,民主黨對摩爾法官也使用了與俄羅斯同樣的舞弊手法,他們已經承認了。你可以看到在很多州,特別是喬治亞州,民主黨從外州拉年輕人、大學生,給他們學生證讓其投票。我們無法鑑定學生證的真偽,無法確認投票人的身份。在喬治亞州州長選舉中,民主黨用公共汽車運進這麼多外人,事實上剝奪了當地選民的選舉權。喬治亞州政府裏的民主黨人原來規定,定期復核選民的個人信息,三年不投票,就要重新登記才能獲得選民資格。不然就無法參加選舉。由於過世等原因,每隔一段時間要更新在冊選民的信息,防止被人盜用。過去我的戶籍在加州聖地亞哥,現在在亞利桑那的Yuma。我已經兩次寫信更新自己的選民信息,但是這次中期選舉,我依然在首都華盛頓收到了一張加州的缺席選票,儘管我是亞利桑那州Yuma市的在冊選民。我銷毀了那張選票,我還是回到Yuma市投的票。但是事實上我可以在兩個州投票。」
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.”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「展望2020年大選,這類手法,不管合法還是非法,是否會影響到選舉的結果?」
“ Going into 2020, how will these tactics, legal or illegal, affect the upcoming presidential election?”

喬治·布勞恩(哥倫比亞特區執業律師):「你會看到,他們會使用在加州奏過效的手法。他們基本上一直嘗試不同的手法,針對像佛羅里達州那樣的大的搖擺州。在2016選舉的時候,這個事就是那些陰招之一。有一段時間突然一下子開票工作就停了,原因之一是他們在研究如何在特定地區拿到更多選票,一直是這樣。如果尼克松在1960年選舉中爭一下,他可能就是總統了,但是他不想讓政府和國家經歷那些。2001年,當布什和戈爾官司打到最高法院, 民主黨只想重新統計特定的縣的票。最高法院說你要是想重新計票,就重新統計所有縣的票。那是佛羅里達的法律,那是一開始的判決,但是實際發生的卻是,他們規定了重新計票的截止日,那一天的統計數字就是最終的計票結果,你不能無休止的重新計票。就像是在明尼蘇達州,當Al Franken競選的時候,他不斷重新計票,弄了27次。他輸了26次,第27次贏了, 成了參議員。你要重新計票多少次呢?為什麼不這樣規定:因為你已經輸了26次,所以第27的統計結果就不算了呢?就像有的體育比賽中採用5局3勝制一樣。很多初選中也出現過這種現象,除非改變重新計票辦法,否則這個問題還將存在。希拉里·克林頓搞過9次重新計票,她都贏了。不可思議,你知道這就像連續猜中9次拋硬幣一樣,非常非常小的機率。」
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. ”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):「您認為共和黨應如何操作2020大選?他們需要學民主黨的辦法嗎?還是加強執法或者是尋求修法?」
“ What are your suggestions to Republicans for 2020? Should they copy the Democratic tactics or try to either enforce or change the laws?”

喬治·布勞恩(哥倫比亞特區執業律師):「首先,我們必須修改法律,改變缺席選票的計算方式。第二件應該有所改變的是,每個州都必須有一個選票監管體系。你不能憑空出現一堆選票,像在佛羅里達州的布羅沃德縣那樣,我們在汽車裡、機場找到選票,在教室裡找到一箱箱的選票。為什麼在這個縣會出現選票滿天飛的現象?如果出現來源不明的選票,就應該立即將其銷毀,如果追回了丟失的選票,就要找到責任人。因為我在佛羅里達工作時,投票結束的時候是7點——選區結束投票的時候是7點,我在7點鐘確定最後一名可以投票的選民。如果你排在那個人前面,那我們就一定會讓你投票,哪怕等到8,9點鐘,但是那個人是最後一個投票的人。當他投票的時候,這個投票點的結果就應該出來了。今年的中期選舉過程讓人無語,在20分鐘內,你就得知道每個選區有多少人投票。如果不能統計出這個數據,那就有問題了。所以我們看到的是,選民數字突然急劇上升。看, 這麼多人來投票了,誰能知道的那麼準?共和黨人需要做的就是在那個時候計算每一張選票。現在,我們不該允許選民在選舉日當天註冊、當天投票。我們必須限制臨時選票的適用範圍。而且,更重要的是,我們必須采取措施對上門催票加以限制。因為在這個國家,不投票權和投票權同樣重要。」
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.”

蕭茗(Host/Simone Gao):我相信共和黨人會從中期選舉中總結經驗,爭取在2020年的大選中取得更好的成績。但是我們都知道:光有戰術還不行。對兩黨來說,如何說服選民接受自己的基本理念,才是選舉成敗的關鍵。我們在今後會更多的討論這個問題。謝謝收看《世事關心》。請在臉書上支持我們,並訂閱我們的YouTube頻道《Zooming In with Simone Gao》。節日快樂!
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

評論