“There is no question that every individual who is eligible to vote should have the opportunity to do so. It is equally important, however, that the votes of eligible voters are not stolen or diluted by a fraudulent or bogus ballot cast by an ineligible or imaginary voter…Voter ID does not depress turnout, including among the ranks of minority, poor, and elderly voters. The real myth in this debate is not the existence of voter fraud, which exists; the real myth is the claim that voters are disenfranchised because of voter ID requirements.” – Who’s Counting?
As we gear up for another presidential election in 2020, we are likely to be sucked into another debate over Voter ID laws and whether they ensure a fair election or put stumbling blocks in the way of disenfranchised voters. Questions will also abound regarding the role of voter fraud in increasing illegal vote counts. Cheating, wherever it is found, is the result of too much power in Washington, D.C., and too many interest groups who will do anything to get their hands on it. Unfortunately, a new dispute has arisen regarding the efficacy of the Electoral College over the popular vote. Again, the result of too much power concentrated in the nation’s capital.
Currently, over 35 states require some form of ID for voting. Yet, the United States is the only democracy in the world that does not have a standard requirement for voter ID, even though two-thirds of Americans approve of these laws and do not see them as discriminatory. This is likely due to scant evidence that voter ID laws prevent anyone from actually voting. In fact, a report by the Pew Research Center found minority participation surged in the 2018 election, with the Latino vote doubling, while the black vote increased by over 10 percent. Despite having the lowest turnout for voting, young people (ages 18-29) increased from 20 percent in 2014 to 36 percent in 2018.
Claims of voter suppression are lies. But they aren’t just any old lies, they’re NOBLE LIES. They’re lies that keep your base angry while never having to admit that your political party has simply lost authority over issues that matter to people. In fact, during legal proceedings following the implementation of voter ID laws in Indiana and Georgia, plaintiffs didn’t produce a single credible example of someone unable to vote because of the law. Individuals who signed affidavits alleging suppression were found to have voted in every election since their testimony. We will never address election interference until we can all agree on a few things: namely, that 200-year-old voters and dead people are ineligible to vote. Right? Right! Baby steps.
On the other hand, voter fraud is rife throughout the country, yet little is said or done to address it. Based on a state-by-state analysis by Judicial Watch, there are an estimated 3.5 million more registrations than adults eligible to vote. And it is not just in one area of the country; there are 462 counties where voter registration exceeds 100 percent of voters. Concerning fraudulent voters, a 2012 Pew Center Report found 1.8 million names of deceased persons still registered to vote. Then, in terms of double voting, there were 2.75 million people registered to vote in more than 1 state. And, finally, there were 24 million registrations that contained inaccuracies or were otherwise invalid.
As you see, voter fraud is no myth. And unlike claims of voter suppression, there is one example after another throughout the country. In John Fund and Hans Von Spakovsky's 2012 book, "Who's Counting?", Fund and Spakovsky compiled a comprehensive list that includes non-citizen voting under Motor Voter laws, absentee ballot fraud, and much more. To close out their analysis, Fund and Von Spakovsky provided recommendations for reforming the system and making the electoral process more secure.
The suitability of the Electoral College came into play after the 2016 election and victory by Donald Trump. After initially claiming that racism was the reason for Trump's success, the party of excuses pivoted to calling the Electoral College both racist and antiquated. The popular vote became the self-righteous cry from the left, apparently believing that this was the only way they could ever win another election. Mind you, when Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama in the popular vote in the 2008 Democratic Primary, nobody said a word. In fact, 2016 was not the first presidential election in which the winning candidate did not secure the popular vote. Just the first one when “Orange Man Bad” won the election.
To help Democrats win more elections, several blue states have adopted a new vote scheme called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which awards all state electoral votes to whichever candidate wins the overall national popular vote. To date, 15 states and the District of Columbia, representing 36 percent of the total electoral votes, have elected to be included. It is interesting to note that under a popular vote, the six largest states: CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, and PA will account for 41 percent of the countries’ total population. No doubt, they would receive the lion’s share of attention in every national election going forward. When considering the voter fraud discussed above, a fraudulent vote under the current Electoral College is counted only in the district where it was cast. Under the Popular Vote, these cases of fraud would affect the national numbers.
Not to be outdone, however, New Hampshire and other states are about to remove the punch bowl from the Popular Vote party. They are proposing to withhold their state’s popular vote totals until after the meeting of the Electoral College. Under federal laws, states are not required to turn in their popular vote totals, nor are they even constitutionally required to hold a popular vote in the first place.
Each state has its own exclusive responsibility to determine voter qualifications. States must, however, ensure that only legal citizens are eligible to vote in federal elections. Unfortunately, as long as we allow imperial power to reign in Washington D.C., these problems will persist.
Comments