Voting by the Honor System
Investigations into the 2020 elections continue to produce evidence of significant irregularities. Given the hypersensitive times in which we live, let me make clear once again that I do not question the legality of President Biden’s election. I pointed out within a few days of the election that it was clear Biden had won. Given the short time frame, it was extremely unlikely that his election would be overturned. This article is more forward-looking and concerned with future elections and measures such as HR1 that would seriously undermine confidence in elections.
In one article about Nevada, 90,000 ballots were returned in Clark county alone after being mailed to the wrong address. Compare this with the fact that for the entire state, only 5863 ballots were returned in the four previous general elections combined.
An article about the Wisconsin election detailed how a Democratic activist was literally given the keys to the room storing absentee ballots. This was part of a project funded by Mark Zuckerberg to influence elections in the five largest communities in Wisconsin. The partisan group wanted to help fix ballots that had been returned with problems.
Democrats argue that there is no proof of fraud, and they are correct. These are irregularities, but there is no proof that any fraud was committed. But then that is our current election system in many states. It is the core behind HR1. Whether intentional or not, the rules make voting extremely easy and at the same time make fraud very difficult to prove.
Democrats seem to argue that if you cannot prove it, it did not happen, but this is nonsensical. Lots of things happen that cannot be proved in a court of law. In essence, Democrats want voting on the honor system. Consider a bank vault with lots of cash. The bank has controls so that only people who have a reason to go in can do so. The bank knows how much is there. If they suspect a problem, given the controls, they can determine, at a minimum, if something was taken. They can probably also figure out who took it.
The way Democrats want elections to run would be like a bank that did not know how much money was in the vault. They would also let people go into and out of the vault at will with no controls or checking. While in theory, only bank employees could go into the vault, in reality, anyone could enter, as it would be illegal to ask if someone were an employee. Everything would be on the honor system. At such a bank, it would be impossible to say if any theft had actually occurred. The Democrats would argue everything was fine, nothing to see here, move along.
The only real difference would be that at a bank, the concern is that people will take money, while in an election, the concern is that people will add votes. Democrats want voting as easy as possible and see rules that would make fraud more difficult as voter suppression. Thus, in California, you can show up and vote for anyone on the voter rolls. I am John Smith, and I want to vote. It is illegal for anyone to ask if you are John Smith. If you are not John Smith, it is not legal to vote as him, but who is to know?
To make matters worse, California also mails out ballots to everyone. In many places, there are more registered voters than eligible voters. In some places, the ratio is as high as 180%. This is 80% more ballots than voters. Given that not everyone eligible to vote votes, that is a lot of extra ballots. They also allow people to collect ballots and turn them in, a process called ballot harvesting. Perhaps they are collecting ballots from voters and turning them in. Perhaps they are just finding excess ballots and voting multiple times. How would you know the difference?
That is the key. Without good controls, there is no way to know if fraud occurs. This is one of the reasons for the big difference in reactions to claims of fraud. Syndicated cartoonist Gary Varvel drew a political cartoon of an election under HR1. In the cartoon, a man comes to a polling place and says, “I’m 16, I’m here Illegally, I have No I.D. and I haven’t registered to vote.” The polling official says, “Here’s your Ballot.” The left-wing fact-checker Politifact rated this Mostly False. In one sense, they are correct; HR1 does not allow someone to declare they are here illegally and still vote. Also, while the bill permits preregistration for 16-year-olds, it does not lower the voting age to sixteen. That is a measures supported by some Democrats, but it is not in HR1.
On the other hand, this is a political cartoon. If you remove the explicit statement about age and illegal status, HR1 would allow such voting. Sure it would not be legal under HR1, but A 16-year-old could show up and vote; there would be little to stop it, which is the point that the conservatives make. So this cartoon could just as well have been rated “Mostly True.”
Democrats act as if we have not had a long history of voter fraud in this country, but we have. In fact, some areas are known for their history of machine politics and fraud. In my book Preserving Democracy, I cite an example of a Congressional election where the documented fraud was greater than the margin of victory. An audit by the Secretary of State found that illegals aliens had not only voted but in numbers over 2.5 times the margin of victory. Still, the election was allowed to stand—nothing to see here, move along.
Democracy depends on free and fair elections. History has shown that we cannot simply depend on the honor system. If we are not careful, we will not be ruled by representatives chosen by the people but rather by those who are the best at cheating.
