How Much Fraud In Elections Is Acceptable?

by lewwaters

The GOP used voter intimidation and outright fraud to hand Florida to George W. Bush in 2000, and if we don’t stop them, they’ll do it again.” – New Jersey Democrat Senator Jon Corzine

Twelve years later and we still hear that cry coming from the Democrat camp, how Republicans “stole the 2000 election.” Never mind it is a lie that was quickly put to rest by a consortium of news media including the New York Times who wrote Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote.

I’ve lost count of how many times we have heard the cry “stolen election” coming from the Democrats, even once hearing regarding the controversial results in Washington State’s 2004 gubernatorial race, “consider that payback for 2000” from a local Democrat.

After President Bush won again in the 2004 election, the cries came to include Diebold Voting Machines “delivered Ohio to President Bush,” and “Ohio is the Florida of 2004.”

Of course, when Democrats made sweeping wins in 2006, Diebold was vindicated.

In fact, all of the cries of voter fraud, voter intimidation, ballot tampering and such just seemed to disappear as all of a sudden, Democrats had faith in our electoral system again. It was the Republicans who now began looking closer at fraud in our elections where they defended the system before.

Bipartisan efforts to “clean-up” our elective process dissipated as more and more fraud was detected and prosecuted, largely among Democrat voter drives.

Democrats began defending the process while Republicans began a drive to require voters present identification to show they are legally entitled to vote, driven by allegations of massive votes by illegal aliens, largely scoffed at by Democrats who proclaim Democrats Value ‘All Immigrants,’ presumably to include those in the country illegally and who have successfully registered to vote, provided they continue to vote Democrat, of course.

I wasn’t too surprised to read in the local paper, the Columbian, an AP article, Republicans search for voter fraud, find little. The Columbian, much like most of the rest of our lamestream media, are largely seen as unofficial daily newsletters for the Democrat Party, evidenced by their outrage over “voter fraud” when Republicans win elections, such as the 2000 presidential election, but fawn over the reliability of our process when Democrats win, as seen in 2006 and 2008.

Missed by all on the left is that if they truly found “little” fraud, obviously they did find “some” fraud.

Demos.org, a leftwing ‘Think Tank’ wrote in a 2003 study of voter fraud, “Elections are the mechanisms by which people choose their representatives. Given that the integrity of this process is central to democracy, there can be no compromise on the need for fair elections determined without the taint of fraud—whether on the part of voters, political parties, election administrators or others.”

By 2012, as more efforts have been launched to curtail voting by those not legally entitled to vote, their cry has changed to “voter intimidation and suppression” along with the rest of the liberal Democrats.

Cast aside by these same Democrats were cases of Thousands of voter registration forms faked in just one state, Indiana as the call went out of, “There has been no evidence of voter fraud yet, because voters have yet to go to the polls.”

As in every other area where mass fraud is suspected, revealing thousands does not reveal all. Just how many bogus voter registrations slipped by and were not caught?

A woman proved that point in Washington State after she successfully registered her dog to vote. Instead of seeing there was an obvious flaw in Washington State voter registration, state officials sought to prosecute the grandmother, even though she never cast any votes by her dog.

And still, Washington State remains one of two states were a drivers license can be obtained without any proof of citizenship, with applicants asked right away, “would you like to register to vote.”

With a valid Washington State Drivers License, another license can be obtained in just about every other state if not all.

James O’Keefe, in his Project Veritas uncovered several examples of the dead being still allowed to vote and potential fraud throughout many states as he presented himself at polling places asking for the ballot of someone deceased. Without being asked for any identification. He did not cast any votes, but videotaped how easily ballots were given him and when asked if he needed to show he was who he said he was, he was repeatedly told it was not necessary.

Democrats were the ones crying massive fraud, intimidation, disenfranchisement and ballot tampering throughout the Bush administration.

Today, they label efforts to ensure clean and honest elections as “suppression and intimidation.”

A valid I.D. must be shown everywhere, to use a credit card, obtain a loan, board an airplane, if pulled over by Police, even to buy a pack of smokes if you smoke, you must show valid proof of your legal eligibility.

But, when voting for the highest office in the land, Democrats desire no one be asked to show their eligibility, even though they demanded just that to enter their National Convention weeks ago.

It all begs the question, just how much fraud is acceptable to Democrats in our elections?

The obvious answer?

As long as Democrats win.

23 Comments to “How Much Fraud In Elections Is Acceptable?”

  1. Lew, I agree with your analysis… However, I still think everyone who plans to make this country their home should be allowed to vote. This is where we primarily disagree.

    Like

  2. I think our laws are clear, Martin, only legal citizens may vote, as it should be.

    A statement of intent to be come a citizen can be easily changed or not followed through on.

    Like

  3. Right after they become citizens, Martin… and those here illegally and their families should be permanently denied that honor.

    Because one of the many problems with your position, exclusive of the obvious illegality, is there is no way to measure such a sentiment. What they “plan” to do today can change tomorrow.

    The democrats want that illegal alien vote, as larger as it is. Because they really don’t give a damn who votes, as long as the ballot goes their way.

    Like

  4. Intent is only good when we discuss murder vs homicide Martin. All other arguments in any court show that intent does not hold water. Action is the only thing that can and most of the residents I have met that are intending to become citizens are in the process of it already and eager to finish with the anticipation of access to voting being the crown jewel for them. Not a bad carrot if you ask me and hopefully one that bonds them to us with more than good intentions.

    Like

  5. People, I never used the word “intent.” I would have written “intent” if I intended intent. 🙂

    But, in all seriousness, as a practical matter, the 2nd Amendment eventually allows everyone to vote – either with a ballot or with their trigger finger. Go ahead, keep 20, 25, 50 million people from voting – we’ll find out how that works out soon enough.

    Like

  6. Martin, why play semantics?

    You said everyone who plans and we say intent. Perhaps you could explain the difference?

    Even if a bloody revolution broke out, where in the constitution or any law does a non-citizen, especially one here in violation of our immigration laws, have any right to cast a vote?

    By the way, voting is of little use in the midst of a firefight.

    Like

  7. I guess, Lew, if firefight is where you’re going. It will be you loading the ammo, won’t it? (Voting would have been such a simple solution.)

    Like

  8. When I asked for voter and DMV reg changes for the protection of the citizens both in the form of their freedom to control and define their own government as well as the safety of their persons and finances, what I got instead was IF an election is found to be fraudulent it must be validated and certified inspite of the fraud by the Secretary of the State of Washington. WOW! That really sounds like democracy to me. How ’bout you? Do you think it is okay for a bunch of foreigners to enter our country with the intent to takeover our government from the inside? Is it okay for illegal aliens bearing arms and oh, maybe drugs and slave trading to enter our country and change our laws to favor their preferances? Now I am sure you are like “oh Carolyn don’t go all extreme on us here you sound a little crazy”. I’ll tell you what sounds crazy is the idea that a government can tell our children what to do but we can’t under threat of jail. A government can administer meds to a child without our permission but when the kid has a headache and Mom gives her 2 aspirins & puts that kid in bed for some rest which she never wakes up from due to a brain hemmorage that a parent didn’t even know was possible because they didn’t know that a drug had been administered by a governmental entity without their consent so they lost their daughter. Now if you say that risk is rare, I will say, you play russian roulette with your own kid but leave the rest alone. I will also say that the argument for not telling a parent is not valid on the grounds that the parents who rape their children are more rare than the risk from the drug. I will also say that the parent might have a chance to protect that child if they are being raped and the parent is informed but no such chance is possible when the rapist is protected by the government and their “selected social police” staff at the schools. I will also say that the people who might be pushing these types of insane ideas into law may not be legal citizens with the right to vote but we wouldn’t know that now would we because voter id is discriminatory against who exactly?

    Like

  9. The primary argument against illegal immigrants voting is, “we were here first and we say who votes” – bad democracy

    The pragmatic arguments against illegal immigrants in general are moot because illegal immigrants living here is fait accompli. All that’s left to us is to keep them out in the first place.

    Lew, I will again point out that I agree with the conclusions you draw in your essay.

    Carolyn… Yikes.

    Like

  10. What you miss, Martin, those casting ballots, possibly not even citizens or entitled to vote in our elections and making major changes to our country is the very thing that might lead to such a scenario.

    If you think the interlopers and illegal aliens plan to usurp our country by ballot or bullet, why in the hell do you support them voting???

    And yes, if it comes down to it, I will once again stand up in defense of my country, my culture, my family and my way of life.

    Will you?

    Like

  11. Martin, as an attorney, please give us the legal definition of the term even you use, ILLEGAL!

    Like

  12. I am simply saying that it is the unknown that is taking control and we should have the right to control our government which entails first securing our borders and then documenting our “guests” so that all are as safe as can be from the gate. What happens after that is purely up to the governed.

    Like

  13. Lew, this issue highlights the distinction between a liberal and a conservative. As a liberal, I accept that the future will be different than it is now – in fact, I look forward to it. I trust that democracy will keep us from revolution but it may take away some of the things I now take for granted. I write here, and will continue to engage in politics, as an attempt to keep the ship going in the right direction, but no one can predict what will happen next?

    Like

  14. Yes Martin, the future will be different. Maybe not in how either of us thinks, but where does that give anybody the right to violate our laws and be rewarded for it?

    You seem to advocate illegal voting by those not entitled to vote.

    Explain by what right foreigners have to vote in our elections for their own advantage?

    Is Democrat power that important to you?

    Like

  15. For America to continue, it needs: 1) Democracy to ensure our future; 2 ) Liberty, which is individual freedom, and; 3) Justice – both in The Law and in society. Notice Democracy comes before Justice.

    Like

  16. The Republican Party of Florida’s top recipient of 2012 expenditures, a firm by the name of Strategic Allied Consulting, was just fired on Tuesday night(Sept. 26), after more than 100 apparently fraudulent voter registration forms were discovered to have been turned in by the group to the Palm Beach County, FL Supervisor of Elections.

    The firm appears to be another shell company of Nathan Sproul, a longtime, notorious Republican operative, hired year after year by GOP Presidential campaigns, despite being accused of shredding Democratic voter registration forms in a number of states over several past elections.

    Like

  17. Martin, you do realize we are not a Democracy, don’t you?

    Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for lunch.

    If you mean we need to restore the Democratic process, then I agree. Obama governing by executive orders, bypassing congress, Harry Reid killing any bill coming from the House without even a discussion, Stuart, Leavitt and CRC forcing citizens to accept a boondoggle generational debt for a project they refuse to allow a vote on, Olympia ignoring a collapsing economy to push homosexual marriage, legislator suing constituents to invalidate their votes, criminals protesting to vote and drawing entitlements, the list goes on and on of how our system is corrupted.

    With our Democratic process so corrupted, we can have neither individual freedom or justice.

    Like

  18. Doesn’t matter who does it, it should not be allowed.

    But a hundred fraudulent registrations compared to thousands?

    Incidentally, accused doesn’t always mean it actually happened. If he actually did, where is the prosecution and conviction? Or did the talking point you found not inform you the allegations were back in 2004 and Sproul “filed a defamation lawsuit against fired employee Eric Russell for his attempts at slander and purporting lies and allegations that were not in fact true?”

    Now, when does the Democrat Party fire those who have engaged in fraudulent voter registration? As you just wrote, the GOP did.

    Like

  19. WASHINGTON — The Republican National Committee on Thursday fired a firm it had hired to register voters in several battleground states after allegations of voter registration fraud.

    Strategic Allied Consulting was first fired in Florida after the Palm Beach County election supervisor flagged more tha

    100 applications turned in by the company that staff noticed had similar looking signatures and wrong birth dates.

    The national committee followed suit and instructed remaining state parties with contracts to also fire the company.

    Like

  20. Repeating yourself, Schuyler?

    Like

  21. Sorry. I thought there was a difference between the Republican Party of Florida and the Republican National Committee.

    Like

  22. Thank you Schulyer. There is a difference. Both Florida and North Carolina GOP fired the Romney-tied group before the RNC did. Dead voters were reportedly found registered as new voters in Florida. The RNC paid firm $3m over 2 months in 5 states and tried to hide ownership to notorious operative.
    I thought Florida was purging voter lists, not adding dead people. This is voter fraud I can understand.
    Republican operatives were actually convicted of voter registration fraud in California in 2008 and again in 2010.
    It’s really pretty amazing that they continue to hire these criminals and yet attempt to distance themselves once their low-life operatives are caught.

    Like

  23. LOL, Schuyler & Nathan. I love it when you stomp on your own foot. How can you say “I thought there was a difference between the Republican Party of Florida and the Republican National Committee” when all along you are who lumps all of us together?

    Nathan, did you conveniently forget the prosecutions of Democrat front-group ACORN and the recent scandalous resignations of certain Democrat candidates.

    But, in your haste to defend the Democrat Party & their years of history in stealing elections by fraud, neither of you answer the question posed.

    Just how much voter fraud is acceptable to you? The recent claims are that there is little fraud, meaning there is still some.

    We wish to eliminate fraud altogether. Democrats seem to find a certain degree acceptable, provided they win with it.

    You also fail to address why we must show ID everywhere throughout society, but showing ID to vote is considered disenfranchisement and suppression.

    Just more smokescreen from you both.

    Like

%d bloggers like this: