Dr. Strangevote or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Vote Fraud.

Republicans are looking forward to the 2010 elections as a referendum to undo the Liberal-Fascist changes wrought by the Democrat/Liberal-Fascist troika of "Broke" Obama, "Nazi" Pelosi, and "Scary" Reid.  Unfortunately, the Republican faith in the electoral process may well be misplaced.  Democrooks have perfected the art of vote fraud.  (Socialists always talk about perfecting man, countries, society, etc.)  With a compliant media in tow, Democrooks can be as sloppy as can be perpetrating voter fraud without fear of scrutiny by the Pravda-inspired lame stream media.  What used to be a joke, e.g., vote early and often, is no longer a laughing matter. Our liberty is in danger.  Our country as we know it is being radically changed much like cancerous cells metastasizing into an ugly death.  We need to ensure that those that vote in American elections have the right and the proper qualifications to vote and that their votes are counted fairly and honestly.

As we rapidly decend into third world nationhood,we should think hard about how we want to run our future elections.  On the one hand there is the Hugo Chavez/Iranian model in which opposition candidates are routinely disqualified and voting machines are rigged.  Unless we act soon that may be coming to a registrar of voters near you. On the other hand there is the Al Franken model in which elections are changed at the vote counting station. This is an emerging trend as Democrats get ahold of the election process.  According to a Fox News opinion piece: 

When voters woke up on Wednesday morning after the election, Senator Norm Coleman led Al Franken by what seemed like a relatively comfortable 725 votes. By Wednesday night, that lead had shrunk to 477. By Thursday night, it was down to 336. By Friday, it was 239. Late Sunday night, the difference had gone down to just 221 -- a total change over 4 days of 504 votes. Amazingly, this all has occurred even though there hasn’t even yet been a recount. Just local election officials correcting claimed typos in how the numbers were reported. Counties will certify their results today, and their final results will be sent to the secretary of state by Friday. The actual recount won’t even start until November 19...Virtually all of Franken’s new votes came from just three out of 4130 precincts, and almost half the gain (246 votes) occurred in one precinct -- Two Harbors, a small town north of Duluth along Lake Superior -- a heavily Democratic precinct where Obama received 64 percent of the vote. None of the other races had any changes in their vote totals in that precinct. [NN: Does this sound familiar? Didn't the problems in Floraduh during the 2000 election come from Democrook precincts?]

And how do we solve the problem of "newly discovered" ballots that emerge whenever a Democrat needs some added votes to win an election such as happened in the 2004 Gubernatorial race in Washington State?  One way might be to initiate stringent "chain of custody" rules for all election ballot activities that is similar to the way that legal evidence is handled in criminal cases. There are multiple definitions for chain of custody.  But to paraphase Wikipedia's definition, chain of custody rules would mean that there would be chronological documentation, i.e., a paper trail, showing the custody, control, transfer, analysis, and disposition of all ballots, physical or electronic.  Vermont has such a procedure for optically scanned ballots. 

As an aside, while it's nice for cash-strapped governments to have unpaid volunteers working the polling place--every person involved in the election process should be subject to a background check, credit check and fingerprinted. There should also be severe criminal penalities, i.e., mandatory jail time, for any ballot tampering.

In the 2004 City of San Diego Mayorial election, 5,551 write-in votes for Councilwoman and surfing enthusiast Donna Frye were invalidated because those voters did not fill-in the bubble next to Donna Frye's written in name as required by the California election laws.  Had those votes been counted Frye would have beaten Dick Murphy handily.  The local ABC TV affliate Channel 10 and USA Today came up with a poll that indicated that 60% of those polled thought that the write-in ballots should have been counted.  The vox populi, as usual was emotional rather than following the American concept that we are a nation of laws not men (and women). Assuming that the 5,551 write-in ballots weren't a part of an incompetently executed ballot stuffing scheme; Frye seemed to have broad voter support especially with such a feckless incumbent like Dick Murphy.  Murphy was later named by Time Magazine as one of the three worst mayors in the United States.

According to the Frye-Friendly Surfer Mag:

Due to the late announcement of her candidacy, Frye’s name did not appear on the ballot. Instead, she was a write-in candidate, a situation which historically does not bode well for those seeking election to a major office. No major office candidate has been elected as a write-in in San Diego since 1982, however, the Frye campaign has done a remarkable job of educating voters on how to cast a write-in ballot, and the results so far have been favorable for the campaign.

So what happened?  Well, but for 5,551 dunderheads that didn't pay attention to the Frye campaign instructions and the California State Election law about write-in candidates, she would have been Mayor of San Diego.  Perhaps many of the 5,551 voters were transplants from Floriduh where the voters were also equally confused by plain English (and other languages) ballots issued in Democrook counties.  Perhaps a literacy test or even a standard intelligence test would be in order for potential voters. I can almost hear the Democrooks crying foul because either test would discriminate against the traditional Democrook voting bases of felons, the dead, those in insane asylums, and Non-English speaking illegals.

But what about voter ID cards with biometric indicators?  Know this, biometric identification is not without its problems, e.g., "...an individual with a disability may not possess the biological characteristic required for a scan or may be unable to position themselves for a scan." 

Democrats routinely charge that voter IDs would be used to suppress minority and other "traditionally" disenfranchised voters.  Do they mean disenfranchised voters like illegal aliens and felons trying to vote for the Democrook of the DNC's choice?  According to one commentator:

[NN: The right to vote] is now endangered unless there are adequate safeguards against voter fraud such as Indiana’s voter ID law. As former Minnesota Secretary of State Mary Kiffmeyer warned recently, “In this day of illegals’ potentially gaining access to the driver’s license system, the verification of citizenship and accuracy of the connection of the ID card to the person voting is only common sense. Anyone who thinks that there is no stealing of votes should go home and next time don’t lock their doors or cars when leaving.”

John Fund of the Wall Street Journal, writes about the electoral process in Mexico and believes that the United States could learn a thing or two about running a clean election from Mexico:

Mexico has developed an elaborate system of safeguards to prevent voter fraud. Absentee ballots, which are cast outside the view of election officials and represent the easiest way to commit fraud, are much harder to apply for than in the U.S. Voters must present a valid voter ID card with a photo and imbedded security codes. After they cast a ballot voters--just like those famously pictured in Iraq last year--also have a finger or thumb dipped in indelible purple ink to prevent them from voting again.

In the U.S. opponents [NN: read Democrooks] of such anti-fraud measures as photo ID laws claim they will disenfranchise many voters and reduce voter turnout. But John Lott, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, notes that in the three presidential elections Mexico has conducted since the National Election Commission reformed the election laws "68% of eligible citizens have voted, compared to only 59% in the three elections prior to the rule changes." People are more likely to vote if they believe their ballot will be fairly counted.

So once again we return to the issue of how we go about counting ballots.  As we've seen, just about every voting method is susceptable to tampering.  The only safeguard for our voting process would be citizens that demand that their elected representatives install safeguards like voter IDs, election worker vetting, and strict chain of custody rules. Anything less leaves us at the mercy of Democrook Party Bosses.

Have we evolved?