Is Your Voter Pool Polluted?

Voter-Fraud is a perennial issue that peaks public interests, media attention, and legislative efforts most often in periods leading up to elections. It occasionally gets some ‘spot-light’ attention immediately after an election when the vote was close and the results are being contested. It is rarely a ‘hugely’ potent topic after the election results are ‘settled’; and particularly improbable where the winner is installed in the White House as President and is the source of the issue remaining on the public dash-board.

Regardless of the reasons that this issue is retaining a spark of interest and dispute, there is an opportunity for our democratic system to benefit for an assessment of America’s voting processes. The most salient reason is that if there are problems, risks or corruption in or around this most essential facet of self-government then who but those that inappropriately, immorally, and illegally benefit from the defects and deceits are ill-served by having a bright light shown upon them?

While voter-fraud is center-stage there are a couple other actors on the stage that ought to be heard, or the audience may not fully understand the scenes playing out. Besides voter-fraud, the other main character is voter-suppression along with a supporting cast of redistricting, electoral college, state management & maintenance of voter-rolls, and assorted bit-players.

There would be no voter-fraud or other vote-related issues if the processes, implementations, and operation of our voting system(s) were done intelligently. Since empirical evidence indicates that intelligence is perhaps the farthest thing from how the nation delivers on this first among many requirements of a free society, an intelligence test on it seems logical.

Question A:   Does voter-fraud occur in US elections?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Answer - A:  1

Rationale - A:      As there are more than zero incidents of voter-fraud identified and prosecuted in the US, then voter-fraud occurs.

Of course, this does not mean that the level/amount of voter-fraud that has occurred has had a significant or relevant factor in the out-come of an election. The degree to which voter-fraud would have to occur to have a ‘meaningful’ effect depends upon the type of election: federal, state, district, local, a referendum question, or other population-dependent voter pool criteria.

Question B:   Is the ‘one-person – one vote’ principle a core requirement, and is it literally applied in US elections?

(1). It is not a core requirement, and it doesn’t apply.

(2). It is a core requirement, and it is applied.

(3). It is a core requirement, but it is not applied.

(4). It is a core requirement, but corrupt districting processes convolute the principle.

(5). It is a core requirement, but the principle has become grossly misaligned.

(6). It is a core requirement, but it does not strictly apply.

Answer - B:  6

Rationale - B:      Presidents are elected under an electoral system structured around an allocated number of state-electoral votes which does not thus equate to a one-to-one vote equality. Congress members are elected by districts which can be and often are ‘constructed’ to bias one party over another. So, some peoples’ votes is not equal to other peoples’ votes. At some point you have to recognize that voting is a process and there will be constraints that make the one-person-one vote concept impractical or impossible; the question is whether any inequality has been engineered and designed into the system and it is not intended to be equitable.

Question C:   Who is responsible for and has engaged in voter-fraud?

(1). Democrats

(2). Independents

(3). Republicans

(4). Political parties

(5). Criminals

(6). States’ Voter Registration entities

(7). Illegal Immigrants

(8). Politicians

(9). Congress

(10). Internet Hackers

(11). State governments and legislatures

(12). Labor unions

(13). Businesses

(14). Lobbyist groups

(15). Groups that support voter registration

(16). Foreign nations

Answer - C:  All the above have participated in voter-fraud. Responsibility is attributable to Congress, the States, and political parties. See the Rationale section for details.

Rationale - C:      All the above entities have engaged in voter-fraud at some time either by benefiting from it or doing it. The key and principle participants in voter-fraud are the politicians and the political parties. Without their support and/or willingness to go along for the ride, the motivating factor for voter-fraud is political and the politicians who can offer quid pro quo value and with the quid pro quo there is no incentive to engage in fraud.

Our current voting environment(s) don’t support flagrant voter-fraud since the technology of voting and the attention paid to it renders significant fraud difficult and risky. To the extent that it still occurs voter-fraud is permitted by our elected officials who are unwilling or incompetent in addressing it.

The consideration that voter-suppression is the most pervasive form of voter-fraud is addressed in Questions F and G.

Question D:   Which conditions are most responsible for voter-fraud?

(1). Dead persons on voter-rolls

(2). Dual-/Multi-state registrations on voter-rolls

(3). False/manipulated ballots cast (a.k.a., ballot-box stuffing)

(4). Illegal immigrants that have obtained a registration

(5). No one knows since there is insufficient fraud identified to quantity

(6). Voter impersonations (someone voting as another person)

(7). Absentee ballots filled out by another party

(8). Votes sold

(9). Exaggeration of voter-fraud

(10). Voter Suppression

Answer - D:  10

Rationale - D:      Efforts to prevent eligible citizens from voting, to interfere with registration efforts, and to fail to resolve the defects and deficiencies in the voting process are the most salient and potent contributors to voter-fraud.

Items 1 and 2 are conditions that exist within the process and are used to commit voter-fraud, but are not the act of fraud.

Items 3, 7 and 8 require the politicians and parties to be involved. These provide the largest opportunity for fraud historically but have succumb to modern prevention techniques and efforts.

Item 4 happens but isn’t prevalent and is caused by inept process controls and incompetent policies from politicians. It is not a reliable or useful approach to attempt to commit effective voter-fraud.

Item 6 is really just the definition of what voter-fraud is. It requires one of the other conditions to affect the fraud.

Item 9 isn’t voter-fraud, it’s a strategy to accomplish some other objective; e.g., enact legislation that will suppress a voter demographic.

Item 5 is the current assessment of how big the problem is.

Question E:    Are the states’ redistricting processes a source of voter-fraud?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Answer - E:  Yes

Rationale - E:      There are varied views on this, so whether you agree or not may depend upon who you choose to believe. However, since there are proponents on almost every side (Rs, Ds and the unholy) that redistricting can be used to produce an abuse of our voting system, it’s hard to figure out how you can argue against it if your own political entities claim it does.

To the extent you view voter-suppression as a form of fraud (or abuse) then redistricting is a source. To the degree, you believe redistricting provides opportunities to enable any of the forms of fraud (Question D or other methods) then it’s a source.

Question F:    Does voter-suppression occur in US elections?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Answer - F:  Yes

Rationale - F:      The estimates of voter-suppression runs into the millions just as the claims of voter-fraud does even if there is little evidence of actual fraud. The courts have found numerous ‘Voter ID’ laws unconstitutional, other forms of voter-suppression attempted, and that the communities that they impact are selective. So there are attempts to invalidate our voting rights but it may be the less attended to effort.

Question G:   What are the sources of voter-suppression?

(1). Photo ID laws

(2). Purges of voter rolls

(3). Felon disenfranchisement

(4). Transgender disenfranchisement

(5). Disinformation about voting procedures

(6). Inequality in Election Day resources

(7). Partisan election administration

(8). Dirty-tricks that interfere with an opposition candidate’s voter get-out efforts

(9). There is no voter-suppression in the US

Answer - G:  1 through 8

Rationale - G:     All these items have been used in US elections and have resulted in individuals being denied the right to vote. The real issue underlying this problem is that our politicians and our political parties have demonstrated their complete incompetence in dealing with a fundamental pillar of our democracy; in some cases, they are the perpetrators of the abuse.

Given the state of technology this should be an embarrassment for the public who elected our ‘leaders’.

Question H:   Where does the responsibility for insuring America’s voting processes are protected from abuse and guarantying each citizen of their inalienable right to elect their representatives? Designate the ‘primary’ responsible entity first, and if there are any others include them after the ‘primary’.

(1). Political Parties

(2). Federal government

(3). Supreme Court

(4). Congress

(5). Voters

(6). States government

Answer - H:  6, 2, 3, 4

Rationale - H:      The States are responsible for legislating the voting system and processes in their state, they are responsible for implementing and conducting the voting processes, and they are responsible for managing and maintaining the voter rolls’ accuracy and integrity.

The federal government is responsible for insuring that citizens’ constitutional right to vote is not infringed or impaired by the States.

The Supreme Court would be the ultimate determining body on a legal dispute over a Constitutional violation of voting rights.

Congress can pass legislation to define voting requirements that must adhere to Constitutional guarantees, or to draft an Amendment to the Constitution to change existing voting requirements.

Question I:      What situation would warrant an assessment of and recommendation for addressing a problem with the nation’s voting process(es)?

(1). Claims of voter-fraud by either of the top two voted for candidates.

(2). Claims of voter-suppression by either of the top two voted for candidates.

(3). Claims of voter-fraud by members of Congress.

(4). Claims of voter-suppression by members of Congress.

(5). Convictions of incidents of voter-fraud where the fraud impacted the outcome of the election it occurred in at a state level.

(6). Convictions of incidents of voter-fraud which represents over half the margin of victory in the election it occurred in at a state level.

(7). Convictions of incidents of voter-suppression where the suppression impacted the outcome of the election.

(8). Convictions of incidents of voter-suppression which represents over half the margin of victory in the election it occurred in at a state level.

(9). The decision should be left up to the States for state elections and the Justice Department for Federal elections.

(10). Congress should make the determination that it is needed.

Answer - I:  All but 10

Rationale - I:        If a candidate (winner or loser) believes that voter-fraud had an impact on their election then they should provide the information that they base their judgement on in writing, and the State’s department of elections should respond with a data-based analysis of the votes in those areas that fall within the results. Whether it’s voter-fraud or voter-suppression should not change the responsibility for performing an assessment.

If members of Congress make statements about voter-fraud/suppression being a real-issue then they should be duty-bound to file a complaint with Congress that initiates an assessment. If the member of Congress fails to file a complaint after making statements that fraud or suppression is, will or has occurred then they should be required to resign from Congress or be expelled by Congressional fiat.

If there are prosecutions of fraud or suppression that result in conviction or legal ruling then an assessment should be required.

Item 9 is already available under our laws, so this is nothing more than business as usual (thought there is some indication that these entities do not act as responsibly as they should, given the fundamental importance of free-elections in our democracy).

Question J:    Did voter-fraud affect the results of any states’ outcome in the 2016 Presidential election?

(1). Yes

(2). No

Answer - J:  No

No competent individual has provided a sound and reasoned basis for suspecting that voter-fraud occurred at even a fraction of the margin between the winning and the losing candidates. The rationale that has been cited illustrates the difference between knowing a fact or two that is true but not being able to comprehend what the facts explain. This presents a real problem for Congress as it represents a topic that is likely beyond their capability to comprehend and their competency to deal with effectively.