Saturday, June 12, 2010

Al Greene: Is It Voter Fraud?

Well it’s worse than I thought. Having an ignorant electorate nominate a virtual unknown to face Jim DeMint in the general election this fall is actually a better and more hopeful scenario than what appears to be unfolding in the post-election investigation that is now ongoing in South Carolina.

Vic Rawl, the populist Democrat who actually did have a chance to take out Jim DeMint in the fall – DeMint was going to be painted as a DC Insider – has three teams looking at the ballots that resulted in Al Greene’s nomination.

And they are finding some suspicious trends.

Trends like Al Greene actually receiving more votes in 25 precincts than there are registered voters in those precincts.

Shades of Texas.

Trends like Al Greene doing significantly better than Rawl on paperless/electronic ballots cast on Election Day, and Rawl doing significantly better than Greene on paper ballots cast by absentee voters.

Significantly better. From Politico:
“In Lancaster County, Rawl won absentee ballots over Greene by a staggering 84 percent to 16 percent margin; but Greene easily led among Election Day voters by 17 percentage points.
Trends like cast votes disappearing off the face of the earth:
“In only two of 88 precincts, do the number of votes Greene got plus the number we got equal the total cast.”
Trends like an unknown candidate receiving huge majorities:
“Greene also racked up a 75 percent or greater margin in one-seventh of all precincts statewide, a mark that Ludwig notes is even difficult for an incumbent to reach.”
Trouble is, what do you do about it? There were so many documented cases of voter fraud in the 2000 and 2004 elections, but nothing came of it. Nothing came of it except that, with electronic voting machines more common than ever, it is easier than ever to commit vote fraud at the polls.

Republican operatives were highly successful in 2000 and 2004 and got their people elected with ease in two close elections. In 2008 there were just too many votes out there and the fraud that I still believe was attempted was unsuccessful in getting the desired result. What I fear, though, is that this primary in South Carolina was just a trial balloon to see just what they can get away with – how extensive can voter fraud be before someone cries foul?

1 comment:

Michele said...

Great commentary. Well put.