You should really say "Count every vote we need, and the rest are probably frauds"
Some more thoughts on "count every vote"--
I listened to John Fund appearing on the Northern Alliance Radio show over the weekend and then read his article here
which restates many of his points. It makes a lot of sense and, as the introduction to his book Stealing Elections
, merely the tip of a what appears to be a huge iceberg of voter fraud that is neither new or necessarily due to one party or the other.
Let's agree that voter fraud is going to be attempted in this election, just like in every election. But does anyone out there really think that all these lawyers assembling in battleground states, ready to "do battle" (hmm, maybe I shouldn't assume the term battleground refers to a close race, evenly divided between valid voters), are only there to make sure every valid vote is counted?
Of course not. I imagine there are lawyers on both sides ready to make sure every vote for their candidate is counted, and as many votes as possible for the other candidate are not. Only in the middle, the line between black and white, are invalid votes going to be discounted and valid votes counted.
Doesn't it seem likely that there will be a huge gray area that includes any vote vulnerable to the charge? Won't some of these lawyers insist that valid votes are invalid? Won't the converse happen as well? While this is bound to happen as a function of the rules of the game, is it really sincere to claim that your plan is to "make sure every vote is counted"?
Keeping Nader off the ballot is a great example of this because those votes are clearly in the gray area even if everyone who votes for Nader does so honestly and correctly. The idea here is not only to protect valid votes, it is to disallow any votes for the other side that can be disallowed.
The ability to commit fraud is becoming easier, as Fund makes clear in just his introduction. But what is more scary to me is the ability to legally
disenfranchise people becoming easier, and under the guise of keeping fraud contained.
posted by M@ at 4:27 PM