Skip to content

Voter Fraud

February 19, 2017

President Trump has on several occasions since the November 8, 2016 elections used voter fraud as an explanation for why his main opponent, former Secretary of State/Senator/First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton apparently defeated him by more than 2.5 million votes in the nationwide popular vote. His claim is that he won the election because he won a majority of the Electoral College votes and that the only reasonable explanation for losing the popular vote was that millions of fraudulent votes were cast by ineligible people voting multiple times and/or in multiple locations. Other sorts of voting irregularities cited include votes by deceased individuals who were never dropped from the voter registration checklists, voting under assumed names for people who were registered but didn’t vote and just about every conceivable way to allow his opponent to defeat him. He even called for another investigatory committee to be formed to find out the scope and extent of the actual fraud and make recommendations for preventing such an occurrence in future elections.

The fact of the matter is that such forms of fraud are indeed very plausible in accounting for over one hundred million eligible and registered voters in a national Presidential election in this country. Do voters exist who may be registered in more than community or even more than one state? You betcha! People in this country are not moored in one location throughout their lives. Often, people move from one city or town to another within the same state or even across state lines. Believe it or not, some people do so without informing their local election officials that they are moving (gasp!). They then register at their new home. Does that mean they will then vote twice in the next election? No, and there has been no evidence presented by our beleaguered President and his multitude of fanciful mouthpieces to indicate that such behavior did or even could have resulted in the magnitude of the Clinton popular vote victory.

Likewise, is it possible that deceased voters remain on the voter checklist posthumously? Indubitably, unless local election boards hire people to scan obituaries on a regular basis and ensure proper removal of deceased voters from the rolls. Some even claimed that millions of undocumented immigrants who are not eligible to vote in our elections conspired to cast ballots unanimously for Clinton (this one was directly from Trump’s mouth). While it is conceivable that some undocumented immigrants may have succeeded in registering and voting, no evidence has been forthcoming from the voter fraud lobby proving that this is even a small scale, let alone a large scale issue as put forth by Trump. A nationwide conspiracy as posited by our new President that failed so miserably at capturing the electoral college victory as well truly strains credulity among most of the American public. That’s probably why Trump’s call for an in-depth full-scale investigation has faded into the background in recent weeks. He’s not the first man elected President while losing the popular vote, and likely won’t be the last (as long as the Electoral College remains). He’s President and needs to get over the fact that more people voted against than for him.

There are several reasons to keep these fallacious arguments in mind when dealing with our electoral system. The GOP, in particular, have in recent decades sought to decrease, rather than increase, overall voter numbers. Voter suppression has become more prevalent in states dominated Republican governors and majority Republican legislatures. Recent Supreme Court rulings eviscerating the Voting Rights Act have encouraged more states to take advantage of no longer having to seek Federal approval before passing laws that suppress the votes of minority members of our electorate to strengthen the hold that the GOP has over the political process within those states, and collectively over the composition of Congress. With a new Republican Administration taking over in the White House and Justice Department, even the limited ability to fight against such laws that was exercised under the Obama Administration is likely to lapse. Passing Voter ID laws while simultaneously making obtaining such ID’s increasingly difficult is one way to play to voters’ sense of fairness while simultaneously achieving the unstated goal of reducing the number of people able to vote for one’s opponents.

Another, even more underhanded means by which to suppress opposition in coming elections is to increase penalties for breaking laws meant to stifle dissent – in effect, placing new and more stringent limits on the First Amendment right of freedom of expression and peaceful protest. Most states don’t allow prisoners to vote. Many make it difficult to regain the vote after sentences have been served. Some even make the voting ban for convicted felons permanent. What better way to ensure your political opponents cannot defeat you at the ballot box than denying them access to expressing their political voice at election time?

As stated above, the schemes outlined by our President as making our electoral system vulnerable to intentional abuse can produce fraud committed by voters, but have not been shown to do so in substantial numbers. The bigger threat, as perceived by many others, is in the election fraud committed by those disenfranchising vast numbers of people who are easily discernable by most as being among those who deserve to have a vote that counts. Coming up with new and more ingenious ways of denying them that voice is wrong. We should be doing everything within our power to increase voter turnout, not decrease it.

Furthermore, if we want to make sure every vote is valid and is counted as intended, we should not be eliminating the offices of those who are supposed to be making electronic voting systems as safe from electronic manipulation and fraud as possible. Along those same lines, many votes are cast in each election which are totally electronic. I go to a computer and vote for the various candidates/ballot initiatives on a touch screen. How the vote is ultimately counted is vulnerable to hacking. There is no backup on paper that can be looked at for verification in case of a recount or electronic system failure. Seems like a new electronic version of the “hanging chads” that so famously clouded the 2000 Presidential election in Florida. A different system I used in another state when I lived there used electronic tabulation of paper ballots filled out by the voter that could then be individually counted in case of a recount. That seems to me far less prone to producing inaccurate results than the system I’ve been using more recently.

Don’t let Donald Trump fool you into thinking that he lost the popular vote last November because dead illegal aliens crossed multiple state lines to cast ballots for Hillary Clinton. More likely, he won the Electoral College vote because too many potential Clinton voters were prevented from voting by suppressive election laws in their states, and Congress remained firmly in GOP hands because of nefarious redistricting at the state level after the 2010 census. Individual voter fraud in our elections is so overwhelmed by the broader issues involved in election fraud as practiced on a grand scale by our political and corporate elites as to pale in comparison. Trump’s whining about it from the Oval Office is designed to distract us from the real damage he and the GOP Congress have in store for us if we fall asleep at the wheel and lose sight of the big picture. Watch what he does instead of listening too much to what he says.

Advertisements

From → Uncategorized

13 Comments
  1. Here’s what I think. Trump won the Electoral College vote by election fraud and the people who engineered it did it brilliantly. They played to win the Electoral College vote instead of the popular vote in the majority of swing states. They didn’t have to fool around with disallowing hanging chads in Florida in 2000 or fixing the voting machines and tabulations in Ohio in 2004. No sir, all they had to do was target specific voting districts in specific counties which would, in winner take all states, give Trump the victory in the Electoral College. Yes, Trump is compelled by his ego to continually claim Clinton’s popular vote majority was the fraud because he needs to be the best, the most whatever in history. Again, his team never gave a crap winning the popular vote because they knew they didn’t need it. They won exactly what Trump needed to win and they’ll let the blowhard complain about the popular vote because that egocentric child doesn’t know any better anyway.

    Liked by 3 people

  2. Voter fraud? Deceased voters? Seriously or did Donald Trump actually lose the election but, won by the Republican’s Illegally redistricting to, suppress Liberal voters which, gained the Electors earning Senate seats while Trump manage to win those 9 – 12 swing states with a high “Electoral College” votes with overwhelming numbers but, lose by the popular vote and, furthermore with California final vote tally clearly show’s Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote by overwhelming numbers including against Bernie Sanders.

    Lets take a look at her numbers vs Donald Trump? Trump won 29 of 50 states and lost by nearly (since California’s final voters tally) 3.8 millions votes now, lets take a look at why and how can this happen?

    Now, in just a short span shortly after the election this is what happened in the news and, in only 3 states with several other states filing against the (R) lawmakers. For their illegal redistricting process that, suppressed and Gerrymandered Liberal voters.

    Wisconsin:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/wisconsin-legislative-map-ruled-illegally-partisan-case-will-go-to-supreme-court/2016/11/21/430d8fdc-b02d-11e6-840f-e3ebab6bcdd3_story.html?utm_term=.f04218fdb7e4

    — The three-judge panel in Wisconsin ruled 2 to 1 that such a violation occurred when the Republican assembly and Gov. Scott Walker (R) went to work drawing the state’s legislative districts in 2011. Judges in the majority said the Republicans drew lines to make it impossible for Democrats to receive their share of power.
    The evidence presented in a four-day trial established that “one of the purposes of Act 43 was to secure Republican control of the Assembly under any likely future electoral scenario for the remainder of the decade, in other words to entrench the Republican Party in power,” wrote Judge Kenneth Ripple, who was nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit by President Ronald Reagan. —

    http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/in-split-decision-federal-judges-rule-wisconsin-s-redistricting-law/article_378cc57b-a0d7-5e7e-bfaa-6b80e98e82c4.html

    — A federal panel of judges struck down Wisconsin’s 2011 state Assembly maps Monday, ruling them unconstitutional.

    It’s a decision that could have broad implications for other states’ gerrymandered maps and could pave the way for a new national standard to evaluate the constitutionality and fairness of such maps.

    The order was handed down by District Judge Barbara Crabb, who was appointed by Jimmy Carter, and Circuit Judge Kenneth Ripple, a Ronald Reagan appointee. District Judge William Griesbach, appointed by George W. Bush, dissented. Ripple wrote the decision.

    The three judges found that Act 43, which carved out new districts for the state Assembly, was written to hurt Democrats.

    “It is clear that the drafters got what they intended to get. There is no question that Act 43 was designed to make it more difficult for Democrats, compared with Republicans, to translate their votes into seats,” Ripple wrote.

    But the judges stopped short of ruling on adopting the metric proposed by the plaintiffs for judging the fairness of maps, called the efficiency gap.

    Attorney General Brad Schimel said in a statement that the state is reviewing the decision and plans to appeal.

    “This 2-1 decision does not affect the results of this month’s election or any prior election and legislative district boundaries remain unchanged until the court rules on any remedy,” Schimel said.

    In the decision, Ripple wrote that it was evident that Republicans sought to construct maps that would ensure a lasting majority.–

    North Carolina:

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/crime/article117567113.html

    — It’s expected the high court could hand down a decision in the case next spring or summer. That process, though, could be delayed if the current eight justices opt to have both sides re-argue the case next year, should a ninth justice be confirmed and join the bench.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in the redistricting case – stemming from a legal challenge to congressional district maps drawn in 2011 by state lawmakers – could have significant political impact, though North Carolina already has redrawn the contested maps and the state used the newly approved districts in this year’s election. Earlier this year, a panel of three federal judges forced North Carolina to postpone congressional primaries and re-do the maps.

    The central question in the case is whether North Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature approved oddly shaped congressional districts that were drawn illegally to pack minority voters in the 1st and 12th Congressional Districts. The plaintiffs in the case argue North Carolina lawmakers sought to specifically weaken African-American voting power across the state, which would put Democratic candidates at a disadvantage. The state’s attorneys have argued the old maps. —

    ad more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/crime/article117567113.html#storylink=cp–
    Colorado:

    http://articles.latimes.com/2003/dec/02/nation/na-district2

    DENVER — In a move Democrats hope will narrow or even shift the balance of political power nationwide, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled Monday that congressional districts crafted by state Republicans earlier this year were unconstitutional.

    The 5-2 decision means at least two GOP seats once considered safe will be up for grabs.

    “This has major implications, because Colorado now has two of the most competitive districts in the country,” said Chris Gates, the Democratic state party chairman.

    “The [national] Democratic Party intends to make Colorado a battleground state. You are going to see more money and more resources poured in here, with higher-level candidates.”

    Republicans now hold five of the state’s seven congressional seats.

    The court ruling comes at a time when redistricting plans are being contested in Texas and, next week, argued before the U.S. Supreme Court.–

    http://www.denverpost.com/2006/07/28/republicans-reopen-gerrymander-wound/

    This is just the beginning folks republican’s are furious Obama won now, they will force the American people to pay, their subversive legislation to win? To Lie, Cheat, Steal tax revenue’s while, removing all public programs and appropriate tax funds elsewhere. Yes, follow the $$$ and you’ll find the republican’s truest agenda, paid for on the backs of the American people the poor, middle-class, the elderly, beginning with healthcare, soon Social Security, Women’s health protection then, immigrants ….

    So, Did Donald Trump truly win or, was it the republican’s illegal redistricting that increased their, voter base to suppress and gerrymander Liberal voters as the judges reviews reported?

    In my opinion, the republican won due to their hate for President Obama’s holding office for 2 terms, (do you recall Mitch McConnell saying, they’ll ensure President Obama will be a one term president? Why? While hate, racial injustice, the Oligarchy society to insure the rich and wealthiest keep this country under their control or, is there another fuse ready to be lit, in the arab nations God only know’s what is next

    Like

  3. Excellent analysis, spot on.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. The US government website on Elections: “there were 231,556,622 Americans eligible to vote, but 138,884,643 voted”. Had 10% more people voted we would be talking about the weather.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Had Hillary Clinton not been the Democratic presidential nominee we’d still be talking and rejoicing about Bernie’s victory and all the additional Dems who rode his coattails into Congress.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Scares me how he is trying to get people to not listen to real media so that he can just create a version of reality that people will believe. Terrifying!

    Liked by 1 person

  6. One additional point: the majority of the electorate does not elect someone president that the majority of people give the lowest polling numbers in modern history (40%) to from the outset of his presidency. That just further underscores that Trump in a fair and open election legitimately won all the popular votes credited to him that were converted into the electoral votes he needed to win. Not even Dubya scored that low in his first presidential poll. And we all know what a lousy president he was from the git-go.

    Like

  7. Not that the Troll King’s court would be this sneaky, but this “investigation” would give the Justice Department – or some other federal entity – full access to every state’s voter rolls and records. Two possible destinations for this info are (1) creation of a database (just for easy analysis of the alien voter problem, of course) that wouldn’t need the authorization withheld from Pompeo’s giant lifestyle database (of course, adding such info to the voter investigation database would help them spot aliens, right?), or (2) this new info could be addded to the NSA’s database. (That was once the Total Imformayion Awareness database that Poindexter wanted but couldn’t get authorization for. The software was given to the NSA, who don’t need no stinking authorization.)

    Any way you cut it, it’s a lot of information – carefully gathered, verified, and formatted using your state tax money – that could easily complete, fill out, verify, or begin a huge domestic database without any need for the congressional authorization that they’ve never been able to get.

    All this being justified by the simple fact that people move from one state to another all the time, and few states bother to ask or notice. An odd thought: for an opposing party to take significant advantage of this, they’d have to have a pretty good database of all the voter rolls from all the states.

    Which is silly. Nobody has that, right?

    Jeff

    Like

  8. For those interested in the evolution of the Electoral College and more. This url takes you to Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison writing on Project Gutenberg http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/18

    Fascinating insight from the beginning of the Union in comparison to it today.

    Like

  9. We have abundant suspicious or aberrant voting issues. Many are the result of GOP strategy. Why haven’t the Democrats pushed for an investigation into election fraud years ago?

    Liked by 1 person

  10. great post!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: