When President Trump called for a commission to investigate possible voter fraud, the reaction was swift and deafening.
(Because I know people from other countries read my blog, here’s the backstory: In the 2016 election in the United States, Mr. Trump won the electoral college, but not the popular vote. California voted so heavily for Secretary Clinton that she won the popular vote. President Trump claimed he would have won the popular vote if there hadn’t been voter fraud, and he set up a commission, the “Election Integrity Commission”, to investigate.)
“There is no need for a commission to investigate voter fraud because there isn’t any — or at least enough to worry about.”
Well, that assertion depends on who you read or who you listen to.
If you read the New York Times, the commission itself is a fraud and a scam. “It is run by some of the nation’s most determined vote suppressors,” it claims. People, it goes on to say, who “release reports on noncitizen (sic) voting.” I, however, feel that only US citizens should vote in US elections, so they rather lost me at that point.
There is one article on the internet that claims the commission is relying on “really dodgy studies.” (I thought that was “really bad writing.”) US News and World Reports claims there isn’t “widespread” voter fraud — which I assume means there is some, just not a lot, and certainly not enough to worry about.
And then, I read this
In an opinion article, a columnist in “The Hill” lambasted Kris Kobach (the vice chair of the commission) alleging such malfeasance by him that it is shocking. But in that article, the columnist stated that when strict voter IDs were enacted in Kansas, there was a 1.9 to 2.2 decline voter turnout, and a 3.7 decline in black voting. You, the reader, are supposed to be horrified by this voter suppression, but I had an unintended reaction.
Why does requiring each voter to have a picture ID depress voting? Why? That makes no sense. We need IDs for all sorts of things. You can’t drive without a picture ID. Heck, you can’t sell second hand goods to 2nd and Charles without an ID. Why should it be easier to vote than it is to sell second hand goods? If voting was important to you, wouldn’t you make sure you had the ID that would allow you to vote (and get money from 2nd and Charles for your old video games?)
Could it be that there was a decline in voting because, until the voter ID was put into effect, fraudulent voting could occur undetected? I’ve got to say, that makes sense to me.
Is there another side to this story?
But what’s a person to believe?
With all the “reputable” sources saying there is no voter fraud (or at least not enough to worry about), and all the other sources claiming that we should be very afraid of it, how can you or I know the truth? It’s not like I can start my own investigation on voting irregularities, and I’ll wager you can’t either. I have lost enough trust in the mainstream media that I simply can’t rely on them. What do I do?
My rule of thumb when faced with something like this is to base my conclusion upon my own experience. Based upon my experiences in life, does it make sense that there are dishonest people in the United States, and would some of them attempt to vote twice (or even 10 times), assume the identify of a person who is dead or disabled, or vote when they are not yet citizens? I have been forced to conclude that there are indeed people who will lie, and some of them will certainly attempt to break even voting laws.
After the 2016 election, there was as story of a town that had more voters than they had citizens. Unless reports like this are completely false, and The Federalist and The Daily Signal just inventing them, then we know there is voter fraud.
But could it turn an election?
But is there enough voter fraud to turn an election? The left says “No!” (Unless the votes are Russian votes.) The right is saying “Maybe”. My guess is: we don’t really know.
But this I know:
What I do know about all of this is that there is simply absolutely no good reason for not checking to make sure that our voting system is secure and that fraud cannot occur. Why not? Isn’t that why Democrats are investigating Russia, after all? They are concerned that Russia swung the election for Trump, something that seems far more improbable than the possibility of voter fraud.
And if there isn’t any voter fraud (or enough to worry about) the commission would eventually be forced to come to that conclusion. Wouldn’t that be embarrassing for President Trump? So, why not just let the commission uncover that truth? Or do we really feel the commission will come to a completely false conclusion because of dishonesty or incompetence, and that it won’t be exposed by the media? I’m having a hard time believing there isn’t one person in the commission who wouldn’t blow that whistle.
The only reason I can see to resist the commission isn’t a good one.
Many states (mostly Democratic controlled — but some Republican states) said they wouldn’t cooperate with the commission. But why not? If there is no widespread voter fraud, why not put this baby to bed by cooperating fully? The left is opposing it, they say, because requiring an ID will suppress minority voting, but I explained why that makes no sense to me. And I addressed why I can’t believe the entire commission would lie to the American people.
The only reason I can see for not cooperating with the commission is that we do indeed fear that there is voter fraud — and a lot of it. That fear may not be accurate, of course, but if you suspect that there might be voter fraud, and you worry it might embarrass your political party if uncovered (or expose your state’s laxity), then, and only then, can I come up with a reason to resist every attempt to investigate voter roles, uncover fraud, or require an ID to vote.
Goodness, I hope I’m wrong. Because if I’m not, there are a lot of people worried about voter fraud who are saying, “Ignore that man behind the curtain.”