Regardless of what anyone may think of Project Veritas' latest political stunt, Primary of the Living Dead, which purports to show just how easy it is for dead people to vote here in New Hampshire, since we require no form of ID before voting here, this "real investigation" by the AG of South Carolina should concern everyone: ["South Carolina's Attorney General detects voter fraud"].
The South Carolina primary is history as we know and soon, Florida will be too. And some are challenging what the AG claimed a couple of weeks ago.
But, as someone who has spent the last two decades writing and broadcasting about vote fraud both potential, known, and otherwise, I can tell you that there is a real problem here.
Stealing an election is pretty easy depending on the level of the race. As
I have written before, take Boston as an example. There are 254 voting
precincts in Boston. Ten people registering with a phony name at a ghost address in all of those
precincts and then casting votes amounts to more than 2,500 fraudulent
votes or, the difference between winning and losing an at-large city
council or mayoral race. If 100 people did this, it would be more than
25,000 votes, or the difference between winning or losing a Senate or
gubernatorial election. A few hundred people, in a coordinated effort,
placed in key cities inside swing states across the country, could
easily throw a presidential election.
Simply put, the road to fraud-less elections are two-fold: 1) Positive, foolproof verification when registering to vote and proof at the polling location on the day of the election before receiving a ballot; and 2) verification of the results, so we know who actually wins our political races.
The solution to 1) is simple: Some form of verifiable identification before registering to vote and a recognizable form of picture ID at the polls, since neighbors just don't know neighbors anymore like they did in the past. The solution to 2) is that all elections should be conducted using paper ballots scanned by optical scanning machines. There should be an automatic hand recount by city and town officials if the results come within a certain percentage and an easy hand re-count process provision if citizens want to request the validity of the results.
But what about claims of racism or the inability to obtain an ID. Really? There are people who don't have some form of ID, whether it be a utility bill, a EBT card, a driver's license or a state issued ID, or a bank statement? Come on. According to the US Census, New Hampshire is 93.9 percent non-minority meaning that more non-minorities are going to have a problem with this than minorities. It's simply ridiculous to say it is racism to require ID to vote here in New Hampshire. If you're talking other states that have larger minority populations, well, that claim could be made although it's still just name-calling. The supposed inability to obtain some form of ID knows no skin color. Old white folks could have just as difficult a time as old black or Hispanic folks. It's truly a non-issue.
For those of you who don't think this is important, I ask you a simple question: What's more important: Convenience or the most fraud-less election process our states and country can have? Having seen these problems time and time again, and realizing just how easy it would be to rig an election, the latter seems more important.