The late voters of Massachusetts
And the Obama Administration wants compulsory universal voter registration? Maybe we should work on culling rolls instead of adding to them! This from Robert Romano at the Washington News Alert:
As reported by CNS News, “In Massachusetts, 116,483 registered voters are dead, 3.38 percent of the state’s total of registered voters. Another 538,567, or 15.6 percent, had moved to an area outside of where they are registered to vote."
Americans for Limited Government Foundation’s project leader, Dan Tripp, is on the ground in Massachusetts monitoring the special election, and said that “for fraudsters, it’s a numbers game. It only takes a few hundred people voting at multiple locations to change the outcome of any statewide election, including Massachusetts’ special senatorial election.”
Generally, in Massachusetts, voters need to provide a name and address associated with the voting list at the polling location in order to vote. There is no voter ID requirement unless a voter registered after 2003 by mail and is a first-time voter.
According to Americans for Limited Government President Bill Wilson, “The implication of dead people showing up at the polls means that it’s no longer sufficient to win an election with a simple majority. Now, candidates need a 4 or 5 point swing just to pad against potential fraud.”
“And that undermines our free form of government at its very core,” Wilson concluded.
Chances are tomorrow's turnout will be relatively low because most special elections only bring out the hardcore voters - casual voters don't always go when there's only one item on the ballot. If you assume 25 percent turnout, those dearly departed voters could be a 13 point swing if their ballots are abused and the most optimistic polls show Scott Brown with a high single-digit lead. Obviously that would be a concern!
Given some of the shenanigans we've seen over the last several years with post-election ballot counting, we truly need to work in the opposite direction with ballot access. I have no idea why Democrats are against photo ID at the ballot box unless they seek to use the lack of same to their advantage.
And since we have "shall-issue" absentee ballots in Maryland (another practice which should be tightened up somewhat) we really didn't need to adopt early voting. Obviously the voters disagreed with me but I think if we don't see any better of a turnout in the next couple elections the issue needs to be revisited. To me, there's too much expense to local election boards and potential for fraud to continue with early voting unless we see at least a 10 or 15 percent increase in turnout.
A saying attributed to Joseph Stalin goes as follows: "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." Obviously it behooves the state of Massachusetts and poll watchers to make sure that only the votes of the living (and legal) are counted. If the votes come in properly and Martha Coakley wins, so be it.
But there's been too many last-minute comebacks by Democrats to be sure everything's above board when they pull off a victory, and Washington Democrats aren't willing to hear the people's voice if they don't like the results in Massachusetts (by threatening to delay Scott Brown's swearing in just to maintain their 60 vote majority for the maximum length of time possible.)
Maybe the best way to look at the situation is to quote Lord Acton - "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." It is only when the people are in power that a republic runs properly.