04-18-2018 10:16:00 AM -0700
04-16-2018 01:32:51 PM -0700
04-16-2018 09:59:36 AM -0700
04-12-2018 09:53:41 AM -0700
04-10-2018 11:19:03 AM -0700
It looks like you've previously blocked notifications. If you'd like to receive them, please update your browser permissions.
Desktop Notifications are  | 
Get instant alerts on your desktop.
Turn on desktop notifications?
Remind me later.

How Fingerprint Technology Solves Election Day Multiple Voting Fraud


One of the more iconic images to come out of the war in Iraq was that of an Iraqi woman proudly showing the camera her purple ink stained finger, indicating that she had voted.  This picture was taken in Sadr City, the epicenter of unrest and violence against the coalition forces.

Of course, since the election had taken place in a Muslim country, this became a cause célèbre centered on new voting rights for Iraqis in general and women in particular.

But the purple finger was also a sign of civilization and democracy on another level, that of not only a free election where all adult citizens are allowed to vote, but also a fair one.

It boiled down to this—one finger, one vote.

Elections are a good thing, but for years, Iraq (like the Soviet Union) supposedly had elections with statistics reported at 100% turnout and Saddam garnering voter support in the high 90s.  The purple finger was a sign that the election was monitored, regulated properly, and that, most importantly, everyone was able to vote, but only once.

Now lets go to the epicenter of the 2012 election, Ohio. Election worker Melowese Richardson proudly told a local TV station that she not only voted twice for herself, but that she also voted on behalf of several other people.

Keep in mind that this was not an illiterate random person, but a trained election worker.  Yet MSNBC regularly proclaims that efforts toward voter ID and claims of voter fraud are canards designed to “suppress” the vote.

Co-author David Forsmark spent a year and a half working for a county clerk and can affirm there are areas where local clerks belligerently refuse to enforce voter ID laws, acting as though denying anyone access to the poll is a violation of voting rights.

Even where clerks are vigilant, people who try to vote but can’t prove their identity are still allowed to vote.  No one is turned away.  Those votes are set aside as provisional ballots for the conflict to be resolved later.

We have seen precincts that report more votes than are registered, but there are no provisional ballots ever reviewed.  Statistically, this is impossible.

The ACLU attitude that it’s better that 1000 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person be convicted is applied to voting “rights.”  But in this case, those 1000 people have a direct consequence on 1000 other people—in effect, they steal their vote.

In the meantime, MSNBC and Eric Holder keep ranting about voter suppression.