Voter Fraud: A Political Battlefield that Cannot be Surrendered
First a bit of news from Western Journalism. In one of his typically difficult to watch and listen to comments, President Obama had this to say about those warning about voter fraud:
It happens to be based on no facts. Every expert, regardless of political party, regardless of ideology, conservative or liberal, who has examined these issues in a serious way will tell you that instances of significant voter fraud are not to be found.
Here is one expert — former voting section attorney at the Department of Justice J. Christian Adams:
[W]e have 4 million ineligible and dead voters on American voter rolls, according to the Pew Charitable Trust. That’s too many and it’s going to affect the election.
You can watch a clip of his interview on the Fox News Network here.
Despite what Obama would have low information Americans believe, there has always been voter fraud, and there will always be those attempting to stuff the ballot box or jigger the computer code to favor one side over the other. It’s not just in Chicago, where every November election day is another Halloween, a celebration of evil where residents of cemeteries vote in droves.
In the 1990s while living in Cook County (yes, the county infamous for voter fraud), I attended a meeting with Cook County Clerk David Orr, who cheerfully traveled to the northwest suburbs to reassure residents of a predominantly Republican area that the new, computerized voting machines were safe from malicious tampering.
I didn’t believe it then, and I don’t believe it now. It’s not just the dearly departed that vote, but the non-existent through the manipulation of computer code. And the phantom programmers can change minds — after the vote was cast. You voted Republican? No you didn’t. You just think you did.
The problem in Illinois has been, at least during the past several decades, the Illinois Republican Party’s fecklessness when it comes to voter fraud. Either through a lack of caring, a lack of leadership, or a lack of funds — the role of safeguarding elections hasn’t been a priority. Without policing — law enforcement — the law is easier to ignore.
So what, they’d say, about that story about the 1960 presidential race when JFK’s campaign called Mayor Richard J. Daley on election day to ask him how many votes he had. Daley’s response, according to the well-known story, was “how many do you need?”
Fifty-six years later the Illinois GOP might be getting serious about monitoring polling places with election judges and poll watchers. At least that’s the assumption, since the party has many more millions of dollars than it has ever had to fund an effective fraud-prevention effort. Will they? If you run into any examples of GOP doing its job at the polling place let me know.
In this election cycle there has been an unprecedented level of attention on the issue as many cases of voter fraud have been reported.
So what is the path forward? Republicans and conservatives must do due diligence, especially in states like Illinois. It is hoped that with the increasing national attention, they will. This is another important political battle that can’t be surrendered.
Since the Republican Party has a statutory role in the election process, that’s where the fraud prevention front line troops need to be assembled. Money needs to be raised to recruit, train, and then man every polling place with credentialed poll watchers and election judges. You don’t have to be a Republican to help the GOP in this effort. Even Independents and non-aligned voters can join in to help with the cause of preventing fraud by volunteering for the party on election day.
For anyone who still doubts the nature and size of the threat of fraud, or for anyone that hasn’t yet come upon some of the coverage of the issue (after all, the mainstream media doesn’t exactly trumpet causes that help Republicans), I have assembled articles from the past many months as I’ve come across them.
To get you started on the issue — check out these from just this week — this first one is the article referred to above:
For over two dozen more articles, click here.
Post Script: A response from one reader is worth adding to this article. This lady’s point is that there is a need for attention to be given to the strength of the laws surrounding voter i.d., etc. That point should have been made by me — I’ll let her make it (her name and location has been left out):
I just read the article about voter fraud. No amount of pole watchers can stop the voter fraud that will definitely occur this election day in Illinois. I am an election judge in ______ County, Illinois. I serve as an election judge to help make sure we have an honest election. I am a Republican but the Democrat judges with whom I work are there for the same reason.
It will be impossible for us to insure that voters registering the day of the election are not voting in several precincts that day. The new rule allows for voters to register in the precinct where they live and vote the same day. They will only be asked for 2 pieces of ID and only one needs to have their current address. The ID with the current address can be any piece of mail received at the address where they are voting. This can be a birthday card or …. whatever. There is no check with the county to see that they are not voting or registering elsewhere.
So …. if you have friends in several precincts, just send yourself something to their addresses and use all of them at different precincts on election day. You can vote as many places as you have mail and time to register and vote on November 8th. I have suggested that the ID required was very ‘soft’ to my Democrat County Clerk. She agreed, but said it is the law. I was encouraged when I heard there was a lawsuit to stop election day registration except at the county court house, but that was thrown out and we are back to this crazy loophole on election day.
Top 6 on BarbWire.com
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.