Unlimited Chances
By Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources (www.originalsources.com)
Feburary 3, 2000
In yesterday's column I pointed out that, while the media was playing up the notion that the New Hampshire Primary was a massive blow to George W. Bush, and to the campaigns of other Repuclicans, there was quite a discrepancy in the number of Democrat voters from past New Hampshire elections. The figures were used by interviewers to put considerable pressure on Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer to "drop out of the race." At the same time Senator John McCain was practically declared the eventual winner.
That analysis ended with something of a question: "At any rate, the disappointed Republican candidates last night probably don't have the whole story about what was going on behind the scenes in New Hampshire yesterday. "
That brought a number of comments from people with some very interesting information. Just a couple of them brought some very real first person information:
Mary,I just read your article, Did Democrats in NH Choose John McCain for the Republicans? and could not agree more. I've been volunteering for the Bush campaign out of Boston, and we were sent to do some work in New Hampshire leading up to the primary. My group and I actually talked with many voters who said they would vote for McCain in the primary to make Bush look weak, and then vote for Gore in the election in November. In other words, Democrats voting Republican. It is especially apparent when twice as many voted in the Republican primary compared with the Democrat primary.
Jennifer L.
I've been around watching and working in elections, sometimes as a Democrat, sometimes as a Republican, for fifty years. That brought back some memories. Dirty tricks, stuffing ballot boxes and registering folks residing underground at the local cemetery was common among big city Democrats, especially in close elections. It would also explain why McCain won so big and why none of the polls came close to predicting it.
Another campaign volunteer brought up another form of voter fraud:
Mary,
I saw your piece on the NH primary. Earlier, I heard on Rush Limbaugh that there was an 80% voter turnout in NH. This an incredible percentage and should be generating a lot of press ink. It made me think of another election a few years ago.
In 1996, I was a campaign volunteer for a California Assembly candidate in Orange County. I was assigned to personally canvas voters door-to-door throughout a number of precincts that ranged over 7 precincts. I discovered that 50% of the voters registered as Republicans were non-existent. Later I met with an investigator from the CA Attorney General's office who explained how the scam works. A paid operator notes the addresses of homes in suburban neighborhoods which have mailboxes accessible from the street. He then makes up names for each address (sometimes a number of them) and registers them to vote. On the day that the Sample Ballots arrive in the mail he sends workers into the neighborhood with lists of phantom voters. The workers retrieve the Sample
Ballots which are then voted absentee. By this means, a single operator with a few day workers can generate thousands of votes and guarantee an election.
I don't know who the perpetrator was in this case, but I have a suspicion. If you register your phantom voters in the opposite party, you can vote against your opponent twice...once in the primary and again in the general election.
The Assembly candidate's district was contained within Bob Dornan's Congressional District. Whatever your feelings may be about Bob, I think there was evidence of extensive vote fraud.
In 1998, an off year election, California reported a 63% voter turnout. Once again, this is an incredibly high number.
Vote fraud is very easy, yet it threatens the foundation of our freedom. As the investigator from the AG's office said "If vote fraud is allowed to continue, the crookedest politician will always win the Primary and the General. You can never get rid of them regardless of how corrupt they are."
I think that this could become a huge national story. Some enterprising reporter simply has to canvas samples from the voter rolls in the states that have not held primaries yet and then see how many phantoms end up voting.
Here in Texas, I worked the 1998 election. I have copies of the log for a precinct in Port Arthur where large blocks of voters voted in alphabetical order!!
Apparently someone looked at the rolls at the end of the day and voted for anyone who failed to show up. I think that fraud must be cheaper than an old fashioned get-out-the-vote effort.
Mike R.
We are living in a time when we have been told, rather authoritatively from the White House, no less, that EVERYBODY lies. Laws do not have to be obeyed. Lying is OK and one should not even expect politicians to tell the truth..
With that kind of a public attitude towards the importance of truthfulness, this promises to be a year of widespread deceit and outright lying in an effort to manipulate voters. Remember all the promises just a few weeks ago about not doing negative campaigning? What then happened is that the media accused some candidates of "negative campaigning" if they criticized the policies of another camdidates, but were strangely silent when attacks were made on those candidates they seem to target for elimination - which at this point is everyone on the Republican side except John McCain.
To comment: mmostert@originalsources.com
To Subscribe to the Reagan Monitor, the newsletter that gives you news FACTS you can USE to make your life, and the world, better go to:
Start Your Subscription