Posts tagged ‘Voter Fraud’

November 12, 2012

Mitt Romney got zero votes in 59 Philadelphia voting divisions.

Miriam Hill, Andrew Seidman, and John Duchneskie, Inquirer Staff Writers

POSTED: Monday, November 12, 2012, 5:30 AM

It’s one thing for a Democratic presidential candidate to dominate a Democratic city like Philadelphia, but check out this head-spinning figure: In 59 voting divisions in the city, Mitt Romney received not one vote. Zero. Zilch.

These are the kind of numbers that send Republicans into paroxysms of voter-fraud angst, but such results may not be so startling after all.

“We have always had these dense urban corridors that are extremely Democratic,” said Jonathan Rodden, a political science professor at Stanford University. “It’s kind of an urban fact, and you are looking at the extreme end of it in Philadelphia.”

Most big cities are politically homogeneous, with 75 percent to 80 percent of voters identifying as Democrats.

Cities are not only bursting with Democrats: They are easier to organize than rural areas where people live far apart from one another, said Sasha Issenberg, author of The Victory Lab: The Secret Science of Winning Campaigns.

“One reason Democrats can maximize votes in Philadelphia is that it’s very easy to knock on every door,” Issenberg said.

Still, was there not one contrarian voter in those 59 divisions, where unofficial vote tallies have President Obama outscoring Romney by a combined 19,605 to 0?

The unanimous support for Obama in these Philadelphia neighborhoods – clustered in almost exclusively black sections of West and North Philadelphia – fertilizes fears of fraud, despite little hard evidence.

Upon hearing the numbers, Steve Miskin, a spokesman for Republicans in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, brought up his party’s voter-identification initiative – which was held off for this election – and said, “We believe we need to continue ensuring the integrity of the ballot.”

The absence of a voter-ID law, however, would not stop anyone from voting for a Republican candidate.

Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia who has studied African American precincts, said he had occasionally seen 100 percent of the vote go for the Democratic candidate. Chicago and Atlanta each had precincts that registered no votes for Republican Sen. John McCain in 2008.

“I’d be surprised if there weren’t a handful of precincts that didn’t cast a vote for Romney,” he said. But the number of zero precincts in Philadelphia deserves examination, Sabato added.

“Not a single vote for Romney or even an error? That’s worth looking into,” he said.

In a city with 1,687 of the ward subsets known as divisions, each with hundreds of voters, 59 is about 3.5 percent of the total.

In some of those divisions, it’s not only Romney supporters who are missing. Republicans in general are nearly extinct.

Take North Philadelphia’s 28th Ward, third division, bounded by York, 24th, and 28th Streets and Susquehanna Avenue.

About 94 percent of the 633 people who live in that division are black. Seven white residents were counted in the 2010 census.

In the entire 28th Ward, Romney received only 34 votes to Obama’s 5,920.

Although voter registration lists, which often contain outdated information, show 12 Republicans live in the ward’s third division, The Inquirer was unable to find any of them by calling or visiting their homes.

Four of the registered Republicans no longer lived there; four others didn’t answer their doors. City Board of Elections registration data say a registered Republican used to live at 25th and York Streets, but none of the neighbors across the street Friday knew him. Cathy Santos, 56, founder of the National Alliance of Women Veterans, had one theory: “We ran him out of town!” she said and laughed.

James Norris, 19, who lives down the street, is listed as a Republican in city data. But he said he’s a Democrat and voted for Obama because he thinks the president will help the middle class.

A few blocks away, Eric Sapp, a 42-year-old chef, looked skeptical when told that city data had him listed as a registered Republican. “I got to check on that,” said Sapp, who voted for Obama.

Eighteen Republicans reportedly live in the nearby 15th Division, according to city registration records. The 15th has the distinction of pitching two straight Republican shutouts – zero votes for McCain in 2008, zero for Romney on Tuesday. Oh, and 13 other city divisions did the same thing in 2008 and 2012.

Three of the 15th’s registered Republicans were listed as living in the same apartment, but the tenant there said he had never heard of them. The addresses of several others could not be found.

On West Albert Street, Duke Dunston says he knows he’s a registered Republican, but he’s never voted for one.

The leader of the 28th Ward is Democrat Anthony Clark, who grew up under the tutelage of the late power broker and Democratic ward leader Carol Ann Campbell. Clark is also a city commissioner, one of three elected officials who oversee Philadelphia elections.

“In the African American community from 33d to 24th between Ridge and Somerset, there is a large population of Democrats and there are not many Republicans in there at all. I think it’s the issues. People are not feeling that Romney is in touch with them,” Clark said.

Despite the Democratic advantage in the 28th Ward, Clark says he also makes sure party workers are getting the vote out.

“People get out, give out literature, talk to people about the issues. Also, they work the polls,” Clark said. “People know them in their divisions.”

Clark struggled to recall anyone in his area who ever identified as a Republican. Though that is not something anyone would likely volunteer to a Democratic ward leader, Clark eventually remembered Lewis Harris, the GOP leader in the nearby 29th ward, and that rare species: an urban black Republican.

Harris, in an interview, said he works for the GOP mostly because he believes city neighborhoods need attention from both parties.

“I open the door to the community and let them be exposed to diversity in the political party,” Harris said. “I want political community-based leverage.”

Harris cast his vote for Romney, but he’s also an Obama fan.

“I love both of those people,” he said.

Nationally, 93 percent of African Americans voted for Obama, according to exit polls, so it’s not surprising that in some parts of Philadelphia, the president did even better than that.

In the entire city, Obama got 85 percent of the vote. His worst showing was in South Philadelphia’s 26th Ward. There, the president garnered 52.3 percent of the vote, compared to 46.6 percent for Romney.

Paula Terreri, 57, a 26th Ward Republican who describes herself as a devout Catholic, said outside the polls on Tuesday that she voted for Romney because she opposed abortion.

Many parts of Philadelphia and other big cities simply lack Republican voters, a fact of campaigning that has been true since Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, Stanford University’s Rodden said.

In 2008, McCain got zero votes in 57 Philadelphia voting divisions. That was a big increase from 2004, when George W. Bush was blanked in just five divisions.

As the first African American president, Obama held immense appeal to black voters, but skin color is only part of the story, said Mark Sawyer, a political science professor at UCLA.

Previous Republican candidates, including Richard Nixon and Jack Kemp, supported affirmative action and urban development, but their party has abandoned those stances, Sawyer said.

Romney’s comments, including talking about people who want “more free stuff from the government” after a visit to the NAACP, only further distanced African Americans who felt the comments played to stereotypes about welfare, Sawyer said.

Inquirer Staff Writer Bob Warner contributed to this report.

August 8, 2012

Voter Fraud and How Al Franken Won the Election

Illegitimate Democrat Al Franken

(WASHINGTON EXAMINER) In the eyes of the Obama administration, most Democratic lawmakers, and left-leaning editorial pages across the country, voter fraud is a problem that doesn’t exist. Allegations of fraud, they say, are little more than pretexts conjured up by Republicans to justify voter ID laws designed to suppress Democratic turnout.

That argument becomes much harder to make after reading a discussion of the 2008 Minnesota Senate race in “Who’s Counting?”, a new book by conservative journalist John Fund and former Bush Justice Department official Hans von Spakovsky. Although the authors cover the whole range of voter fraud issues, their chapter on Minnesota is enough to convince any skeptic that there are times when voter fraud not only exists but can be critical to the outcome of a critical race.

In the ’08 campaign, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman was running for re-election against Democrat Al Franken. It was impossibly close; on the morning after the election, after 2.9 million people had voted, Coleman led Franken by 725 votes.

Franken and his Democratic allies dispatched an army of lawyers to challenge the results. After the first canvass, Coleman’s lead was down to 206 votes. That was followed by months of wrangling and litigation. In the end, Franken was declared the winner by 312 votes. He was sworn into office in July 2009, eight months after the election.

During the controversy a conservative group called Minnesota Majority began to look into claims of voter fraud. Comparing criminal records with voting rolls, the group identified 1,099 felons — all ineligible to vote — who had voted in the Franken-Coleman race.

Minnesota Majority took the information to prosecutors across the state, many of whom showed no interest in pursuing it. But Minnesota law requires authorities to investigate such leads. And so far, Fund and von Spakovsky report, 177 people have been convicted — not just accused, but convicted — of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Another 66 are awaiting trial. “The numbers aren’t greater,” the authors say, “because the standard for convicting someone of voter fraud in Minnesota is that they must have been both ineligible, and ‘knowingly’ voted unlawfully.” The accused can get off by claiming not to have known they did anything wrong.

Still, that’s a total of 243 people either convicted of voter fraud or awaiting trial in an election that was decided by 312 votes. With 1,099 examples identified by Minnesota Majority, and with evidence suggesting that felons, when they do vote, strongly favor Democrats, it doesn’t require a leap to suggest there might one day be proof that Al Franken was elected on the strength of voter fraud.

And that’s just the question of voting by felons. Minnesota Majority also found all sorts of other irregularities that cast further doubt on the Senate results.

The election was particularly important because Franken’s victory gave Senate Democrats a 60th vote in favor of President Obama’s national health care proposal — the deciding vote to overcome a Republican filibuster. If Coleman had kept his seat, there would have been no 60th vote, and no Obamacare.

Voter fraud matters when contests are close. When an election is decided by a huge margin, no one can plausibly claim fraud made the difference. But the Minnesota race was excruciatingly close. And then, in the Obamacare debate, Democrats could not afford to lose even a single vote. So if there were any case that demonstrates that voter fraud both exists and has real consequences, it is Minnesota 2008.

Yet Democrats across the country continue to downplay the importance of the issue. Last year, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, denounced “the gauzy accusation that voter fraud is somehow a problem, when over and over again it has been proven that you’re more likely to get hit by lightning than you are to [be] a victim of voter fraud.”

Wasserman Shultz and her fellow Democrats are doing everything they can to stop reasonable anti-fraud measures, like removing ineligible voters from the rolls and voter ID. Through it all, they maintain they are simply defending our most fundamental right, the right to vote.

But voter fraud involves that right, too. “When voters are disenfranchised by the counting of improperly cast ballots or outright fraud, their civil rights are violated just as surely as if they were prevented from voting,” write Fund and von Spakovsky. “The integrity of the ballot box is just as important to the credibility of elections as access to it.”

via Book: How Voter Fraud Put Al Franken In The Senate « Pat Dollard.

February 16, 2012

Voter Fraud Could Decide Next Election

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Reports are coming in that the voter rolls have been faked. We knew that the voter rolls were padded in places like Chicago, but now we’re learning that the fraud is more widespread than we ever could have imagined. The question is, can we do anything to stop it?

In the days of the Soviet Union, Communist leaders would generally get 95 percent of the vote, and nearly every eligible voter voted.

A new report by Pew Center on the States estimates that among 24 million voter registrations, about one out of every eight are either no longer valid or are inaccurate. Of the invalid or inaccurate registrations, 1.8 million belong to deceased individuals and 2.75 million belong to people who are registered to vote in more than one state.

You can see how these fraudulent voter numbers can be used to tip an election. Most of elections these days are close to even. We are a 51 to 49 percent nation. It doesn’t take much fraud to throw enough votes to a favorite-son candidate. The Kennedy-Nixon presidential election in 1960 was always thought to have been won by Kennedy due to voter fraud:

Many Republicans (including Nixon and Eisenhower) believed that Kennedy had benefited from vote fraud, especially in Texas, where Kennedy’s running mate Lyndon B. Johnson was Senator, and Illinois, home of Mayor Richard Daley’s powerful Chicago political machine. These two states are important because if Nixon had carried both, he would have won the election in the Electoral College.

It was serious enough that many Nixon supporters urged him to contest the race.

You know that Liberals have been using these bogus rolls to pad their numbers. 2012 may be the first national election that there are more votes than actual voters.

There’s another element to voter numbers that’s troubling and easily fixed. The Pew study “also found that 51 million U.S. citizens are eligible to vote, but have not registered. This represents 24 percent of the voting eligible population.”

Tens of millions of Americans who are eligible to vote don’t vote. Of course, some of these non-voters we don’t want to vote, but I suspect that there are big numbers of conservative, anti-big-government Americans who have given up on the political process. They don’t see much of a difference between Democrats and Republicans. The reason that we have a one-party “Republicrat” political system may be due to voter indifference. If you are one of them, now is the time to reengage. Too much is at stake. Your non-vote only means greater voting strength for the opposition. Remember, the presidential race is not the only one being run. Congress can stopped the President if it has the will and the guts.

via Voter Fraud Could Decide Next Election.

January 1, 2012

Gingrich: Attorney General Eric Holder Wants to ‘Steal Elections’

Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich blasted the Justice Department for blocking a South Carolina voter identification law and suggested the Obama administration wants to “steal elections.”

During a campaign stop in Council Bluffs, Iowa, the former House speaker questioned why Attorney General Eric Holder is “so determined not to identify if people are not eligible to vote”

Gingrich went on to say that, “you have to ask, why is it that they are desperate to retain the ability to steal elections and I think that’s what it comes down to.”

The Justice Department recently rejected South Carolina’s law requiring voters to show photo ID at polling places as discriminatory against minorities. Republicans argue stricter voter ID laws are needed to avert voter fraud.

The South Carolina primary is Jan. 21.

Gingrich’s once promising campaign has derailed over the last month, especially in key early caucus Iowa where frequent attack ads against Gingrich have sent the former Speaker of the House from first to fourth place in polls over the last month.

via Gingrich: Justice Dept wants to | TheBlaze.com.

%d bloggers like this: