Mail-in voting subject to fraud

In a letter to the editor, Ed Dartford writes, "Voting fraud is too easy to do, and moral constraints are no longer observed. The end justifies the means."

To the editor:

Democrats, including their subsidiary the MSM, and a recent Eagle letter writer, argue that mail-in voting poses no risk of fraud. In what world do they live? Very recent mail-in voting in several primary elections have actually experienced serious problems, and this was with a relatively small number of ballots to be counted.

Both BBC News and the New York Times (sources that meet the Eagle’s requirement for fact-checking) report that California and five other states plan to mail out ballots to all registered voters. Voter registration files are notoriously out of date in most states, so it is obvious that mailing out ballots to the entire list would include many mailings to wrong addresses, and to dead people. Even unsolicited mailings of applications for a ballot, rather than an actual ballot, poses the same risk. Maybe there will be little fraud, but mail-in voting is like playing Russian roulette: Most of the time nothing bad happens, but once in a while … The editor has pointed out that proven cases of voting fraud are few, but the crime is rarely investigated or prosecuted, and past history is no prediction of what may transpire in today’s hate-filled political environment. Voting fraud is too easy to do, and moral constraints are no longer observed. The end justifies the means.

Why do I think that today’s Democratic Party is different from what it once was, and would stoop to fraud? They vigorously advocate mail-in voting. They vigorously oppose voter ID rules. They advocate “vote harvesting” where a party worker goes around and collects many filled-out ballots and turns them in as a group (or only some perhaps). They talk about giving noncitizens and 16-year-old kids the vote. Their actions to subvert Trump’s Electoral College victory, and their subsequent unrelenting efforts to undo the election including a silly impeachment, have, in my opinion, utterly discredited their moral standing.

The only questionable presidential election that I participated in was Kennedy’s victory over Nixon. The outcome was in doubt because of massive voting fraud by Democrats in Chicago. Nixon was urged to contest the result and in retrospect, we know he had a good case. But whatever you believe about Nixon, he did the right thing by not contesting this election and dragging the nation through the turmoil that would have happened. Compare this with what the Democrats did in the close Florida contest a few elections ago, and Hillary’s ongoing sob story today.

Lyndon Johnson was reputed to be a really dirty politician in his senatorial elections. There was a joke. An elderly woman approached the senator and spoke as follows: “I will vote for you, as I have done in every other election, but would you please do me a favor and help me get a US citizenship?” Back then it was a joke: not so today.

It was great when everyone came out to vote together on one “Election Day.” For some it was a holiday from work, and others were granted time off to vote. It was a time for bonding and patriotic displays. In early days, much beer was consumed on wagons giving rides to the polls and operated by the candidates. I suppose that the beer is out today, but the parties still give rides to the polls.

Ed Dartford
Stockbridge