This Just In

[brynndragon]

From the you-can-never-have-too-much-good-news department:

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, Rummy

Comments

[greyhame.livejournal.com]

Because there are adequate procedures in place for challenging votes after the fact. If there's a suspicion of that kind of fraud, challenges can be made. That not very many challenges are made of course isn't proof that that kind of fraud isn't happening, but it's strong evidence.

[evan712.livejournal.com]

The problem with that theory is that someone would have to be suspicious. Where are the suspicions going to start? With the overworked essentially volunteer poll workers or with the voters themselves? They are the only ones that have direct contact during the election. Or are we going to rely on analysts that tell us that too many people voted in a handful of precincts?

Things like this have happened before. The most obvious example was the 1960 presidential election. That one came to light because it was so obvious.

How many races could be affected by 3000 false votes done this way? The 2000 presidential election? The Montana Senate Race? The point is it is an obvious and easy way to commit vote fraud that can be made far more difficult with just a small effort. Fixing this issue lowers the margin of error on our elections.