William Katz:  Urgent Agenda






THE WAY WE HOLD ELECTIONS – AT 10:37 A.M. ET:  I agree with an increasing number of writers who've remarked on the disgraceful way we conduct elections in many areas of the country – particularly inner cities.  Some of the vote totals appear to be pure fiction.  Indeed, one of the UN observers sent to study our elections this year, and look for signs of "voter suppression," was quoted as saying how shocked he was that there were practically no standards for voting.  No real controls on corruption.

Mark Steyn has a comment on that, noting that many precincts in cities like Philadelphia and Chicago reported vote tallies that are impossible to believe:

Earlier this year, up north, I celebrated a modest victory in my battle against Canada’s “human rights” commissions, and wrote en passant:

After Hosni Mubarak was “re-elected” with 97.1 per cent of the vote, he was said to be furious with his officials for stealing too much of the election and making him look like one of those crude ham-fisted dictator-for-life types like Saddam and Kim Il-Sung. So next time round his officials arranged for him to “win” with a mere 96.3 per cent of the vote.

Now comes the news that, following his impressive 100 per cent share of the vote in 59 Philadelphia precincts, Barack Obama was able to eke out a 100 per cent total victory in a mere 37 precincts in his home town of Tikrit – whoops, I mean Chicago. NBC reports:

In 37 Chicago Precincts, Romney Received No Votes

Heavy concentration of Big Bird fans perhaps. One commenter observes:

Statistically, even if among 10′s of thousands of voters all wanted to vote for Obama, it would not be possible to receive 100% of the vote because at least a few would make a mistake and vote incorrectly for Romney.

Just to be clear: I think Obama won the election, and his victory represents the will of the American people. Which is why the Democrats should have heeded Mubarak’s words and not over-stolen it. I was not one of those who objected to the presence of international observers at this month’s election, as if the United States were just another banana republic: By comparison with Canada, Australia, and most other free societies, the integrity of the American ballot is a joke, and ought to be a source of shame.

COMMENT:  I agree.  I've seen the reports from those Chicago precincts.  They are fiction.  No one gets 100%.  As the Steyn column notes, a certain number of voters simply make mechanical mistakes and vote for the wrong person.

And yet, mainstream "journalists" ask no questions.  Apparently, it is considered improper to ask questions about corruption in "inner city" areas.   But who gets hurt by this?  Ultimately, it is African-Americans, who are used as political cannon fodder by their so-called "leaders." 

In a close election, voting corruption can elect an American president.  It may have happened in 1960, when Kennedy "defeated" Nixon.  Votes in Illinois, meaning Chicago, made the difference. 

But to some journalists, and, sadly, some academics, voter corruption is an evil only if the "wrong" people win.  If the "right" people win, we move on.  It is a source of shame indeed.

November 19, 2012