Posted on 12/03/2002 2:09:04 PM PST by UPIDC
Hi, this is Dan Olmsted, Washington Bureau Chief of United Press International. We're still looking at the Thune-Johnson race, and would appreciate any suggestions for how to nail down any possible fraud in the race.
Just kidding. Go to "search" (above the thread of articles), type in "vote fraud" and you should find a lot of articles and anecdotes posted here on FreeRepublic. Happy hunting....
It's got a lot of articles and a state by state compilation of research...
Here's the "fraud analysis" parts of one of my recent columns. The statistically-valid random samples are the key. In a recount, samples are meaningless. But in an analysis of possible fraud, they are excellent.
(This was one of the columns which pursuaded Tobin Beck to pick me up as a columnist for UPI, just three weeks ago.) Contact me if you have any questions.
But why would Thune’s not fighting it out give a better chance of clearing the air and cleaning up the elections in South Dakota? The reason is entirely political.
The F.B.I. announced before the election an investigation into fraud in the South Dakota election process. The Attorney General of the state has already announced that Becky Red Earth-Villeda, who was a contractor for the Democrat Party, will be indicted for preparing 500 to 1,000 fraudulent absentee ballots. That alone sounds like more than enough to overturn a 524-vote win by the Democrat candidate for Senate.
Yet if the outcome of a recount would determine whether a Republican or a Democrat gets a precious Senate seat, big city lawyers would fly in from both coasts on Lear jets and the battle would begin. The object of the Republican attackers would be to prove fraud. The object of the Democrat defenders would be to argue, “There’s nothing to see here, folks. Move along.” The press would take sides, as Democrat-oriented papers swallowed, accepted and printed the Democrat line. Even the Democrats in state and local office would be dragooned into the defense, to the extent they permitted that to happen.
But since Thune has conceded, there is no Senate seat at issue. Instead, the reputation of South Dakota is at issue. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly said, “The right to vote is the most basic right, because all other rights depend on it.” And the right to vote itself is under attack when elections can be decided not by votes actually cast, but by “votes” manufactured by fraud. With no seat at stake, everyone in South Dakota, not just the Republicans, has a stake in getting to the bottom of what happened in 2002, to make sure it doesn’t happen again in 2004.
The potential fraud is not restricted just to one or two counties containing Indian reservations. The woman about to be charged will be tried for attempting her fraud in absentee ballots in as many as 25 counties. Plus, there are other anomalies to examine.
Four counties in South Dakota had more registered voters in 2002 than the Census of 2000 found had residents over the age of 18. Not all residents are citizens. Not all citizens register. Clearly in those four counties there is either gross incompetence (citizens who died or moved away were kept on the voting rolls), or gross fraud (dead or non-existent “citizens” were added to the rolls).
Also, 28 of South Dakota’s 66 counties had a turnout of 75% or better, and the overall turnout was 71.5. It is a simple matter to look at prior off-year elections to compare apples and apples. Counties that jump out in that statistical manner as having unusually high turnouts now are obvious targets for examination for fraud. Especially obvious would be ones where more than the adult population was registered to vote and more than normal turned out to vote.
This year’s Senate race in South Dakota attracted high interest, and also extensive advertising for and against both candidates by the candidates themselves, but also by all manner of special interests. Therefore, there is a solid reason for turnout as a whole in the state to be higher this year than the previous off-year election in 1998. However, that offers no explanation why turnout should be much higher than the basic increase, only in certain counties.
According to Michael New, a post-doctoral fellow at the Harvard-MIT Data Center, turnout in this Senate race was 27% higher statewide than in the last midterm Senate election in 1998. But that was not consistent across the state. In the counties where fraud is most suspected, the increase in turnout was up to 89% more than four years prior. The other major anomaly identified by Dr. New was that in all counties but one, Senator Johnson ran 12% behind the pace of Senator Daschle in his last election. In Shannon County alone, Johnson ran 12% ahead of Daschle’s pace. (Shannon County was the last to report, at about 8 a.m. the day after the election.)
So a target list of up to two dozen counties in South Dakota where fraud may have occurred, can easily be assembled. Other than by confessions of fraudulent activity, which will probably be scarcer than hen’s teeth, how does one prove gross error and/or fraud in the voter rolls? Here’s how:
If the Attorney General’s Office is going to do this job competently, so be it. But that office is only interested in finding out where crimes were committed. The state legislature should take the bit in its teeth (since they are responsible for the election laws), and do its own civil investigation, not for the purpose of showing who committed what crimes, but for the purpose of guaranteeing that South Dakota has honest and fair elections in the future, in which every citizen can have faith in the legitimacy of the outcomes.
In the target list of counties, examine individual voting records in sufficient number to provide a valid statistical sample, say 600 voters, which would provide a margin of error of about 4%. The largest county with a turnout of 75% or more was Brown, with 17,304 votes counted. The smallest in this category was Harding, with 801 votes counted.
Use the list of voters who actually voted. Run the lists alphabetically. In Brown County, take every 29th name. In Harding County, take three out of every four. Then send out investigators to find out if Alice A. Aardvark actually lives at the address shown, and says that she did vote on 5 November, 2002. Of course, no voter from Ms. Aardvark through to Zeke Z. Zymurgy should be asked how he/she voted, only whether he/she voted. Sampling for counties in between those large and small examples would be adjusted to produce the sample of 600 from the votes apparently cast.
If it turns out that Ms. Aardvark – and 1% of the other apparent voters in Brown County – either does exist but did not vote, or cannot be found at all, or only in a cemetery, then it means that statistically, it is very likely that about 173 “votes” of non-voters were counted in that County. If it turns out that Mr. Zymurgy – and 2% of the other apparent voters in Harding County – either did not vote, or did not exist, then about 16 “votes” of non-voters were counted in that County.
This is just a matter of shoe leather and statistics. It doesn’t take any deep thinking, only the will to do it. And if the appropriate legislative committee – probably a special committee of House and Senate members in South Dakota assembled for this very purpose – finds these kinds of numbers in a variety of counties, they will know that the state’s election processes are at least sloppy, and probably fraudulent. Such numbers would also show that the result of the Senate election was in serious question (without determining that Thune should have defeated Johnson, because that question is off the table).
Such a result should put some starch in the spines of the South Dakota legislators to take steps ensuring that future close elections are not questionable. Among the simple solutions which other states have applied are periodic postcards (NOT to be forwarded) to voters at their home addresses as shown, to purge dead or missing voters from the rolls. The best solution, again applied in some other states, is to require that each voter present a picture ID when arriving to vote.
There are also a variety of methods that can be used to tighten up the absentee ballot process. An obvious one is to bar the state parties from either initiating or collecting and mailing anybody’s absentee ballots. This practice, which is common in many states, is an open invitation to fraud. One might as well ask the fox to take an inventory of the chickens in a pen. The self-interest is just too glaring; the temptation just too great.
Furthermore, an investigation like this in South Dakota to identify “votes” cast by non-voters might encourage other states to conduct such examinations of statistical anomalies in some of their counties.
Even the American press could join in. Pick any county where the odor of vote fraud lingers. Take the voting rolls – which are, of course, public records – and select the proportion of voters necessary to make a valid statistical sample. Send out a couple of reporters with street maps and lunch money, and let them find, or not find, those voters. Print the results in the paper, or broadcast them on the news. And present a written description of the process and the results to the legislators responsible for making certain that those elections count real votes – meaning votes cast by real citizens who are alive and breathing and registered.
A thorough and proper examination of what did and did not happen in South Dakota in 2002, if conducted in this manner, could have benefits for the integrity not only of future elections in that state, but future elections all across the country.
I am not neglecting the criminal side of the matter. Any American who is found guilty of criminal fraud in the conduct of elections, should do hard time in stir. A slap on the wrist is not sufficient. Such crimes are an attack on the most basic right of all Americans as stated in the Declaration of Independence and as guaranteed by the Constitution, to control the directions of our own governments at all levels. This is not a minor matter like spitting on the sidewalk, and the penalties applied should reflect that.
By asking and answering these questions about voting in South Dakota (or anywhere else) when the outcome will not determine who gets to hold a particular office, partisanship is taken off the table. Democrats, Republicans and others should have an equal interest now – after the elections are over – in making sure the process is as clean and honest as it can be for the next election. It will be too late to do that thoroughly and competently, the next time there is a close election somewhere whose outcome may be critical to the control of a city council, a state assembly, or even the US Senate.
Cordially,
Congressman Billybob (aka, J. Armor, Esq.)
I am not neglecting the criminal side of the matter. Any American who is found guilty of criminal fraud in the conduct of elections, should do hard time in stir. A slap on the wrist is not sufficient. Such crimes are an attack on the most basic right of all Americans as stated in the Declaration of Independence and as guaranteed by the Constitution, to control the directions of our own governments at all levels. This is not a minor matter like spitting on the sidewalk, and the penalties applied should reflect that.As far as I am concerned, any vote fraud is tantamount to an attempted coup d'etat and should be punished accordingly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.