Kerby Anderson

As we get closer to the election season with primaries and a general election, we should once again consider how to prevent election fraud. The goal should always be to make it easy to vote and hard to cheat.

Yet whenever the discussion turns toward preventing election fraud, it is often met with the response that this is a solution in search of a problem. We are told there is very little voter fraud, and when it exists it doesn’t affect the final vote in any significant way.

My response has been to ask a question: “Since you do admit there is voter fraud, how much voter fraud do you think is acceptable?” We wouldn’t accept that argument from a bank president if there were problems with the daily reconciling of bank accounts.

Recently Rachel Alexander made the same argument by asking, “What If We Excused Other Crimes the Way We Do Election Fraud?” Many polling places don’t provide a paper trail of the vote. Imagine telling an IRS agent during an audit that “you have no receipts or records for the last few years, so agents need to believe you.” I think you know the answer to that question.

She reminds us that in the banking industry “employees are fired and can be prosecuted if the numbers merely seem off. As with cashiers at stores, a typical amount of money is expected to come in daily. If that number starts being low, security measures like cameras and keystroking devices are put in place to try and discover the theft.”

She then points to various anomalies in several states from the last two elections that always seem to benefit one party. She also documents the fight in courts to prevent video surveillance of ballots being dropped off.