Is America becoming undemocratic?
“Voter fraud, no matter how pervasive, is dismissed,” said Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund, who is also the author of Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy. Fund believes that if America doesn’t get serious about dealing with voter fraud, it will undermine our country’s political system.
Fund, who spoke earlier this month at The King’s College in New York as part of the school’s Distinguished Visitor Series, said that more and more Americans are voting in elections where “you lose your vote” because of voter fraud. He identified absentee ballots as “the new form of voter fraud” because the rules surrounding absentee voting are so vague. Fund cited Detroit as an example of a city with corrupt absentee voting, where he said there ended up being more registered voters than people. The problem persists in part because, Fund said, “some people like a system with rules subject to interpretation.”
According to Fund, the outcomes of the recent Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial elections, both of which were won by conservative Republicans, were significant. In New Jersey, he said, “there was a lot of fraud . . . but not enough to swing the election.” His assessment of the change in voter behavior in these two states: “The American people in Virginia and New Jersey saw that government was growing too fast, too big, taking on too much debt, and assaulting fundamental rights.”
Growing up in San Francisco, Fund said he “rebelled against the liberal counter-culture” there. As a young adult, he moved to Washington, D.C., where The Wall Street Journal hired him as a columnist. Fund said that his being hired by the Journal was more a product of “luck” than anything else, adding that professional success is not just skill but “the intersection of two roads: luck and talent.”
Matthias Clock is a student at The King’s College in New York City.














Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top43 Comments to “Is America becoming undemocratic?”
Is Fund saying that voter fraud is coming from conservatives?
Report comment to moderator
I don’t think so, News2me, I read it that there was fraud, but not enough to keep the conservatives from winning.
As long as efforts to require proof of identity are defeated, there will be voter fraud.
Report comment to moderator
Well, Chicago might not be a good example since everyone knows there is voter fraud there, but a friend of mine continued to get an absentee ballot in the mail for her mother several years after said mother was dead (and I think after at least one phone call to whoever dealt with absentee ballots). In the last house where I lived, when I went to vote no one ever asked for ID, but I could clearly see the names listed on every address on my street, and who had or had not voted yet . . . and could see that each of my three roommates from past years was still listed too, even though all had moved to other states by then. Anyone could have voted under their name with no one batting an eye. I’m probably still listed there too, though I’m now registered in Tennessee, and have been for years.
The potential for fraud is simply gigantic even in those situations where none of us involved did anything wrong; add in the possibility of deliberately registering extra people, with the continuing stupidity of not taking voters off the record in one state when they register in another and not requiring ID to vote in many states, and so many other things, and yes, it’s a massive issue, and probably decisive in a huge percentage of elections today.
(But think it’s bad now? Get rid of the electoral college, where fraud can only affect results of one state at a time, and we’ll really see what fraud can do when 15 million extra votes manufactured in Chicago are no longer just affecting the vote of a state that was going to go Democrat anyway!!!)
Report comment to moderator
The mere fact that “W” became president while losing the popular vote is a striking piece of evidence that this county is not run by purely democratic processes.
Gerrymandering is another form of “fraud” in voter representation of the populace.
Moreover, the political climate in the country is routinely influenced by corporate elites that use conservative media to influence a sheepish and sadly illiterate populace to vote for representation that has the campaign contributions of the rich at heart and not the best interests of their constituents. People who can’t afford health insurance end up opposing reform that would help them.
The ascendancy of a “Tea Party” culture is yet another manifestation of exagerrated influence of a minority mob that has been riled up by corporate-sponsored media propaganda (i.e., “Fox”) to protest democratically elected representation. This immoral minority sensationalizes anecdotal instances w/ACORN, for example, but ignores the plain fact that rich, white conservatives are routinely over-represented at the ballot box by comparison with their actual numbers in the population.
Report comment to moderator
#4 Spinoza, A republic is not purely democratic. There is nothing fraudulent about an electoral college. Do you object to the American election system? Do you care about voter fraud, or is it fraud only when your side loses?
Since you are so worried about gerrymandering, are you upset that Obama took over the census? Obama will manipulate the way that the “underrepresented” is calculated. Do you mind?
Why do you call conservatives sheepish and illiterate when many of them are independent enough to criticizes both parties? They didn’t get a thrill up their legs when Bush was elected. Cult-like Obama supporters on the other hand, swoon when he speaks and don’t mind when he collaborates with terrorists, surrounds himself with Marxists and Maoists and lies unashamedly.
As for Tea Parties, why do you object when an electorate expresses themselves? During Bush’s presidency Pelosi praised people going to town halls and making themselves heard. Now she is aghast and teary eyed about it, calling it unAmerican and dangerous.
And lastly, your racism couldn’t be more apparent, “the plain fact that rich, white conservatives are routinely over-represented at the ballot box”. Aren’t you the least bit ashamed?
Report comment to moderator
“Some people” make pitiful attempts at blaming Republicans for voter fraud. It has been one-sided cheating/fraud for about 150 years.
“W” had at least 15,000 votes stolen from him in South Florida. How do I know? There were that many ballots double punched for both Gore/Bush that were punched Republican for the down ticket offices.
As for Gerrymandering, own up to it, Democrats!
Wikipedia
“The word gerrymander is a portmanteau of “Gerry” and “salamander”, and is named after Gerry (pronounced /???ri/; 1744–1814), the governor of Massachusetts from 1810 to 1812, and a supposedly salamander-shaped constituency that he created.
In 1812, Governor Gerry signed a bill into law that redistricted his state to benefit his Democratic-Republican party. One of the resulting contorted districts was said to resemble a salamander.[1] The term first appeared in the Boston Gazette on March 26, 1812.”
…corporate elites that use conservative media… This is an “Oscar Meyer” statement, full of balogna!
I think the most telling thing about the “Tea Party” march on Washington was that there was no trash left on the streets to pick up.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, because of toleration for voter fraud in its many forms and tolerating tactics like those used by ACORN (registering far more voters than residents in many districts), America is indeed becoming undemocratic.
And here in Minnesota, it is already there! There are far too many aggressive Democrats here who effectively used voter fraud both before and after the many re-counts to elect Al Franken for us to even begin to claim to be democratic. Every last re-count blatantly favored Al Franken throughout the state–at IMPOSSIBLE odds.
The word “democratic” means something and we must rise to that definition to honestly call ourselves democratic. And in my view, the most undemocratic among us are the Democrats.
Report comment to moderator
Remember the blatant voter intimidation by Black Panthers in Philadelphia that Eric Holder legally protected and dismissed?
There is little that is democratic about that!!!
Report comment to moderator
Democracy isn’t a very effective form of government. That’s why our founding fathers wisely gave us a Republic. Too bad they weren’t wise enough to outlaw a federal income tax.
Report comment to moderator
If votes all become computerized, why can’t someone tweek the output just a wee? Sort of like, “if every third vote is for _____, then change it to _________.
People seem to be able to get into many computers and crash them, it seems, very easily. So why not the votes?
Report comment to moderator
While we were overseas we registered to absentee vote and sometimes we got our ballots from the embassy after the election had already been held. Sometimes our ballots stayed at the embassy up to a month after the election was held. In 2008 we had been back in the states for over 6 months when we went to vote in our properly registered voting precinct. We were told that we had received an absentee ballot and it was only after we went and got our passports and came back to show when our passports had been blackmarked over our Kazakh visa’s that they allowed us to vote. I still wonder who voted for me in Kazakhstan and for whom they voted.
With ACORN and the Black Panther’s and the Chicago Democratic machine running our nation if we really believe there will be another fairly run election we may be dreaming.
Report comment to moderator
What is really sad is when DC points to other countries and claims voter fraud, when ACORN, Obama’s little seed, has shown countries around the world what their true purpose is.
Report comment to moderator
Maybe we need a king. Or maybe we already have one in the making?
Report comment to moderator
#4
You sure know how to put a SPIN on things.
Report comment to moderator
“It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything.” Joseph Stalin
The whole election system is a mystery and these experts do little to explain how the system works or where the weaknesses are.
Report comment to moderator
While it may sound corn-y, I would prefer for some tighter definitions on “fraud.”
The actual number of instances of such fraud are few and far between — the Michigan case most commonly referred to is, one in 2005. The absence of convictions suggests that voter fraud is about as prevalent as voter suppression (the Left’s favorite electoral bugaboo).
Report comment to moderator
#15 CCC
That Stalin quote makes one pause for thought.
Report comment to moderator
“Is Fund saying that voter fraud is coming from conservatives?”
Can’t be in Jersey. But we’re so used to fraud here, we just expect it. When we got new voting machines, they bought the ones WITHOUT the paper trail. I was actually surprised that we elected a Republican governor. Didn’t think they’d let it through.
There was an ACORN conviction. The guy got probation. He needed jail time.
Report comment to moderator
“…but ignores the plain fact that rich, white conservatives are routinely over-represented at the ballot box by comparison with their actual numbers in the population.”
I have an idea.
Let’s impose a sort of affirmative action with voting.
White people can only vote if enough
Democratminority votes have already been cast. Or, we only count a certain number of white votes, in a given ratio to minority votes.It’s only fair.
(P.S. I expect to be compensated, or at least hailed as a prophet, when this happens.)
Report comment to moderator
The purpose of the electoral college was to keep the big states from overpowering the little states. I don’t want a presidential election decided by the west and east coasts with the rest of the country ignored. I would not vote to amend the Constitution to get rid of the electoral college.
Report comment to moderator
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
Report comment to moderator
#21: First democracy, then the sky. Don’t get ahead of yourself.
Report comment to moderator
I wouldnt advocate dismantling the electoral college but I would advocate eliminating caucuses and going to a system of rotating primaries. Iowa and New Hampshire are entirely caucasian for the most part and their prominence is way way out of proportion to reality.
Caucuses are rigged against those who work nights and cant come back to participate in the convention the evening of the primary vote. Rotating regional caucuses would give everyone more of a stake in the outcome.
I heard about the Black Panther bullying in Philly. The irony there was one of the older observers had been in his younger years a Justice Dept lawyer who prosecuted voter fraud in the old lilly white Deep South (land of the White Primary)
As I see it now, New Hampshire is the land of the white primary
Report comment to moderator
We have seen a number of allegations of voter fraud in recent elections. the most recent when this cry was raised was by Hoffman in the NY 23rd.
The issue of course is was there actual fraud? Or more correctly intentional and organized fraud of any significance?
In the NY 23rd the evidence now suggests there was not (there was apparently no real acorn presence for example).
And to charge fraud where there is none is every bit as damaging to the electoral system as the fraud itself: in both cases the integrity of the voting process i being undermined.
If individuals are going to charge voter fraud as a significant part of the impact of the election, then I suggest they should be held to the following standard:
1) clear evidence of the fraud
2) clear evidence that it was organized
3) clear evidence that it materially impacted the election
In all but a few cases, when voter fraud is charged, the evidence is missing, it is in general not organized and it has limited impact if any on the election.
the counter argument: tighten voter roles is itself damaging to the electoral process: if individuals who are elgible to vote are incorrectly disenfranchised, then this also undermines the legitimacy of elections. And there are numerous documented cases (Florida 2000 comes to mind) where improper disenfranchisement on a large scale was documented to have occurred:
Florida disenfranchisements
And to attack absentee ballots has negative effects on many of our eligible voters, most importantly our military.
There are voter irregularities. These should be corrected. But to charge voter fraud as a serious issue without meeting the three requirements I provided is I suggest an effort which unjustly undermines the legitimacy of our entire political process
Report comment to moderator
Sawgunner makes an excellent point in #23. I come from a state that has a late primary and also has a large number of hispanic and fairly large number of black people. It sometimes happens that the nominee for one or both parties is already “decdied” by the time my state votes. I have long thought that we should revise the primary-caucus-convention schedule. Of course, that is a matter for the political parties themselves to decide. (There are some laws governing the schedule too, which might have to be reconsidered.)
Report comment to moderator
Kyle A post 25,
I suggest that it is even stronger that you or sawgunner suggest.
For all practical purposes the votes of those in strong blue or strong red states are immaterial: in the state based winner take all model, any given individuals vote in such a state does not matter.
By contrast if we had a true popular vote for the presidency, then every vote counts as much as any other.
Such a model does, however, make the impact of voter fraud deeper: each fraudulant balllot now counts, whereas fraud today is only effective at swinging the election if it is massive enough to swing an otherwise decided state.
Report comment to moderator
Fraud really doesn’t mean we’ve become “undemocratic.” Fraud, cheating, stealing, whatever you want to call it, has been with humans since the beginning. It’s our nature, and it occurs in whatever form of government there is. Which fraud would you rather deal with? Ours, where it is possible to do something about it, or the fraud in one of those African nations where the corruption is so pervasive that the leaders would let the people starve to death for a buck.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 27,
very germane and astute comments. Thanks!
Report comment to moderator
Is America becoming undemocratic? Heh. I wish.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D. #3 Excellent point about the electoral college.
Spinoza #4 You are so brainwashed by the mainstream media. You don’t even realize that there are rich Democrats who run corporations because the people you listen to tell you they are all Conservative Republicans.
The mainstream media is out of touch with mainstream America and in cahoots with the power brokers in Washington to foment class warfare.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer: When we got new voting machines, they bought the ones WITHOUT the paper trail.
Interestingly, most of the cases where voters caught electronic machines changing their votes, it was to change the intended vote for a Democrat to an unintended one for a Republican.
And let’s not forget that in 2003, the chairman of Diebold, the biggest maker of electronic voting machines, all but promised in a letter to steal the 2004 Ohio vote for Bush. Even Diebold itself admits this. (article here.)
It also was Republicans convicted in a phone-bank scheme in 2002, trying to suppress Democratic voter turnout efforts.
Comments in this thread nonwithstanding, where there has been proven voting fraud or other election tampering in the past decade or so, it’s almost all been on the part of Republicans.
Report comment to moderator
Mary2751,
and you suggest that there are not conservatives who are also fomenting class warfare?
But perhaps we will need to examine what we mean by class in more detail.
Report comment to moderator
In #4, I was responding to the thread headline – “Is America Becoming Undemocratic?”
My point, echoed even by those I vehemently disagree with, is that it never was truly democratic.
As to whether or not it should be, that’s a completely different topic.
Report comment to moderator
Betty Bowers touches on Republic vs Democracy in the youtube video: Less is Mormon
XLNT!
Report comment to moderator
I Googled Florida vote, 2000.
I had no idea the Leftist Democrats were so stuck on it. Now I understand.
Report comment to moderator
Bob Buckles post 35,
you mean like the conservatives seem to be stuck on voter fraud and acorn (c.f. this discussion group and Hoffman pronouncements)?
Voter fraud does occur. Unjustified disenfranchisement also does occur. As I noted, the question is how much does this actually impact the election.
And to make these charges without evidence, such as conservatives clearly did in the Hoffman election in NY 23rd, servers only to unjustifiably impugn the integrity of the electoral process as a whole.
Report comment to moderator
#31 And let’s not forget that in 2003, the chairman of Diebold, the biggest maker of electronic voting machines, all but promised in a letter to steal the 2004 Ohio vote for Bush. Even Diebold itself admits this. (article here.)
That’s NOT what that article says. It says he chose to donate and host fundraisers, not steal votes with the machines:
You’re passing your own interpretation off as fact and it’s not very accurate.
Report comment to moderator
DJ post 37,
indeed you are by reading correct: Diebold did not directly threaten to throw the election.
There is the issue, however, that Diebold has been very secretive about their machine, and it appears that there are indeed security flaws in the machines:
http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/
raising the potential that should Diebold choose to, they have the means to throw an election.
It strikes me that it is perhaps an appearance of impropriety for a company deeply involved in the hardware for the electoral process to also be highly partisan: it allows such observations to be supported by the circumstantial facts.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
I do agree that the appearance of impropriety is a problem, and it is certainly not appropriate for any company to actually have the means to throw an election. It’s not helpful to the process and it does leave room for speculation. Whatever technology we use should not be so proprietary that it does not lend itself to independent scrutiny. Mistakes are one thing, but if the process is not honest and transparent, then people will lose confidence in it. As for Diebold, they are apparently trying to be less political, but I’m not comfortable with any one company having too much participation in elections.
Report comment to moderator
Which political party is against using photo ID for voting?
Why would anyone be against photo ID for voting?
What other reason is there except voter fraud to be against photo ID for voting?
My conclusion is that Democrats want to be able to, in those immortal words,
“Vote early, vote often!”
Report comment to moderator
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes–that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado– 68%, Iowa –75%, Michigan– 73%, Missouri– 70%, New Hampshire– 69%, Nevada– 72%, New Mexico– 76%, North Carolina– 74%, Ohio– 70%, Pennsylvania — 78%, Virginia — 74%, and Wisconsin — 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware –75%, Maine — 77%, Nebraska — 74%, New Hampshire –69%, Nevada — 72%, New Mexico — 76%, Rhode Island — 74%, and Vermont — 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas –80%, Kentucky — 80%, Mississippi –77%, Missouri — 70%, North Carolina — 74%, and Virginia — 74%; and in other states polled: California — 70%, Connecticut — 74% , Massachusetts — 73%, New York — 79%, and Washington — 77%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes — 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Report comment to moderator
The potential for political fraud and mischief is not uniquely associated with either the current system or a national popular vote. In fact, the current system magnifies the incentive for fraud and mischief in closely divided battleground states because all of a state’s electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state.
Under the current system, the national outcome can be affected by mischief in one of the closely divided battleground states (e.g., by overzealously or selectively purging voter rolls or by placing insufficient or defective voting equipment into the other party’s precincts). The accidental use of the butterfly ballot by a Democratic election official in one county in Florida cost Gore an estimated 6,000 votes ? far more than the 537 popular votes that Gore needed to carry Florida and win the White House. However, even an accident involving 6,000 votes would have been a mere footnote if a nationwide count were used (where Gore’s margin was 537,179). In the 7,645 statewide elections during the 26-year period from 1980 to 2006, the average change in the 23 recounts was a mere 274 votes.
Senator Birch Bayh (D–Indiana) summed up the concerns about possible fraud in a nationwide popular election for President in a Senate speech by saying in 1979, “one of the things we can do to limit fraud is to limit the benefits to be gained by fraud. Under a direct popular vote system, one fraudulent vote wins one vote in the return. In the electoral college system, one fraudulent vote could mean 45 electoral votes, 28 electoral votes.”
In Illinois in the 1960s, accusation of vote fraud by both political parties were commonplace. In 1960, a switch of 4,430 votes in Illinois and a switch 4,782 votes in South Carolina would have given Nixon a majority of the electoral votes. However, 4,430 votes in Illinois were only a focus of controversy in 1960 because of the statewide winner-take-all rule. John F. Kennedy led Richard M. Nixon by 118,574 popular votes nationwide, so 4,430 votes were not decisive in terms of the national vote count. Of course, if Nixon had carried Illinois and a state such as South Carolina in 1960, Nixon would have won a majority of the votes in the Electoral College, despite not receiving a majority of the popular votes nationwide.
Report comment to moderator
Posts 41 and 42, Not only does it seem to me that the potential for voter fraud is astronomically higher when you can affect not just your state that would have gone Democratic anyway, but the whole nation, but even saying the potential is equal in both, the reasons in favor of the electoral college still exist (that the large states not be the only ones that count) . . . and also, speaking of fraud and trouble, can you even imagine a super close election without the electoral college? Where, say, the difference is half of one percent between the two candidates and a nationwide vote recount becomes necessary?
In my opinion, the electoral college is a wise protection, needed now more than ever.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!