The Election that Creates the Most Problems

Except for one, all elected officials in America are "state-specific" – that is, they work in or for a state.  America's one elected official that is not state-specific is the president; voters in all the states get to vote for president.  And it is the presidential election that creates more problems than any other election.

It is "the several States" that have the responsibility for conducting elections, including the election for president.  But the states have rather different election systems.  For instance, Oregon elections are done exclusively by snail mail.  Also, coordination among the states is pathetic, which allows fraud, such as multiple voting, where one votes for president in more than one state.  But multiple voting might also be possible in a single state, through early voting, in-person voting on Election Day, absentee ballots, mail-in ballots, and provisional ballots.  Another type of fraud is the creation of ballots in backrooms during recounts.  If enough fraud is committed in just one or two states, as we suspect happened in 1960, it can throw the election of a president to the loser.

Voting requires residency in a state.  This is such a central requirement that a judge once allowed homeless folks to claim park benches as their residences so they could vote (mustn't prevent hobos from exercising their franchise).

But should one need residency to vote for president?  If one is a U.S. citizen, should one need to be a resident of some state to vote for the one elected official that is not state-specific?  Maybe the federal government should conduct this one election that the whole nation votes in.

If so, each ballot for president would still need to be tied to a state, and that's because of the Electoral College.  It's the states through the Electoral College that elect the president, not the people.  The people elect electors.  If you want to abolish the Electoral College to have popular election of the president, you'll need to amend the Constitution.  Good luck on that.

For years now, Democrats have claimed that there is "no evidence" of widespread voter fraud in America's elections.  The Dems want us to believe that our elections are on the up-and-up; nothing to see here; get back to work.

But thanks to the long coattails of candidate Trump, Democrats got routed in 2016, and at all levels of government.  So now we hear a constant drone from the Dems about how the 2016 election was "hacked."  The Dems are quick to add that there's "no evidence" of any tampering with vote counts; otherwise, they'd have to admit that maybe our election systems aren't so secure after all.  But with the Russian hacking allegations, Democrats have witlessly damaged their narrative.

Democrats expect Republicans and conservatives to produce evidence of election fraud.  But here's the thing: what "evidence" do Democrats have that there is no fraud in our elections and that the vote counts are correct?

If one faction must prove its case, the opposing faction must also prove its case.  If doubters are supposed to prove that fraud exists, then those asserting that fraud doesn't occur must also prove their case.  But neither side can prove its claims about fraud, nor can it put a number on fraud's frequency.  In a democracy, such a state of affairs shouldn't be tolerated.

Since 1996, it has been illegal for aliens to vote in federal elections.  But how do the feds enforce this law?  Are there mechanisms to catch aliens in the act, such as when they register or sign in on voting rosters at polling places?  Or are they identified when the votes are counted?  Or is this just another unenforced federal law, like emailing classified information via private email servers?

Those who would dismiss that America has a problem with illegal aliens voting in our elections should read "Do Illegal Votes Decide Elections?" by Hans von Spakovsky and John Fund, which ran on Nov. 30, 2016 at the Wall Street Journal.  The article also ran at the Heritage Foundation.  If you have three and a half minutes, be sure to watch Mary Kissel's accompanying video interview of Spakovsky.

If we want to bring integrity and surety to the election of the president while continuing to use current state election systems, this requirement needs to be imposed: all the ballots cast in the entire nation need to (ultimately) go into the same file, and each ballot needs to have a unique national ID attached to it.

To appreciate the need for ballots to go into a single file, imagine what your bank account would be like if there were separate files for each type of transaction, such as those done by check, by ATM, by telephone, in person at the bank, etc.  It'd be unworkable.  You need a single file for all types of transactions.  We do not have a single file for all the ballots in our presidential election.

As for the "unique national ID," we already have one: the SSN.  It's remarkable that Americans put up with so much stink about voter ID when we already have a nice voter ID.  And we already have a national voter registry: the SSA's database.  If the states were serious about voter fraud, they'd use E-Verify to register voters and to conduct elections.

Here's what the states should be required to do: immediately after the states count the votes for president, they should send a copy of the ballots, each identified with SSN, to D.C. to be put into a standalone electronic file.  With the SSNs, that file will allow the feds to identify illegal alien voters, multiple voters, dead voters, and other types of fraudsters we aren't currently catching.  After the feds have determined the true winner of the presidential election, they would send a report back to the states showing what their true counts were and whom they have on their registries they shouldn't have.  Prosecutions could then proceed.

Does that all seem like some monstrous intrusion into state sovereignty?  If so, then the states should have to demonstrate that all their voters are legal.  With today's election systems, Americans are expected to just accept what the authorities tell them about who won an election.  No real proof is ever brought forth.  It's all rather authoritarian.  With the simple method I've just outlined, Americans could have proof, and we'd have the means to enforce that 1996 law.  After all, the Democrats wouldn't want illegal aliens voting, would they?

Jon N. Hall of ULTRACON OPINION is a programmer from Kansas City.

Except for one, all elected officials in America are "state-specific" – that is, they work in or for a state.  America's one elected official that is not state-specific is the president; voters in all the states get to vote for president.  And it is the presidential election that creates more problems than any other election.

It is "the several States" that have the responsibility for conducting elections, including the election for president.  But the states have rather different election systems.  For instance, Oregon elections are done exclusively by snail mail.  Also, coordination among the states is pathetic, which allows fraud, such as multiple voting, where one votes for president in more than one state.  But multiple voting might also be possible in a single state, through early voting, in-person voting on Election Day, absentee ballots, mail-in ballots, and provisional ballots.  Another type of fraud is the creation of ballots in backrooms during recounts.  If enough fraud is committed in just one or two states, as we suspect happened in 1960, it can throw the election of a president to the loser.

Voting requires residency in a state.  This is such a central requirement that a judge once allowed homeless folks to claim park benches as their residences so they could vote (mustn't prevent hobos from exercising their franchise).

But should one need residency to vote for president?  If one is a U.S. citizen, should one need to be a resident of some state to vote for the one elected official that is not state-specific?  Maybe the federal government should conduct this one election that the whole nation votes in.

If so, each ballot for president would still need to be tied to a state, and that's because of the Electoral College.  It's the states through the Electoral College that elect the president, not the people.  The people elect electors.  If you want to abolish the Electoral College to have popular election of the president, you'll need to amend the Constitution.  Good luck on that.

For years now, Democrats have claimed that there is "no evidence" of widespread voter fraud in America's elections.  The Dems want us to believe that our elections are on the up-and-up; nothing to see here; get back to work.

But thanks to the long coattails of candidate Trump, Democrats got routed in 2016, and at all levels of government.  So now we hear a constant drone from the Dems about how the 2016 election was "hacked."  The Dems are quick to add that there's "no evidence" of any tampering with vote counts; otherwise, they'd have to admit that maybe our election systems aren't so secure after all.  But with the Russian hacking allegations, Democrats have witlessly damaged their narrative.

Democrats expect Republicans and conservatives to produce evidence of election fraud.  But here's the thing: what "evidence" do Democrats have that there is no fraud in our elections and that the vote counts are correct?

If one faction must prove its case, the opposing faction must also prove its case.  If doubters are supposed to prove that fraud exists, then those asserting that fraud doesn't occur must also prove their case.  But neither side can prove its claims about fraud, nor can it put a number on fraud's frequency.  In a democracy, such a state of affairs shouldn't be tolerated.

Since 1996, it has been illegal for aliens to vote in federal elections.  But how do the feds enforce this law?  Are there mechanisms to catch aliens in the act, such as when they register or sign in on voting rosters at polling places?  Or are they identified when the votes are counted?  Or is this just another unenforced federal law, like emailing classified information via private email servers?

Those who would dismiss that America has a problem with illegal aliens voting in our elections should read "Do Illegal Votes Decide Elections?" by Hans von Spakovsky and John Fund, which ran on Nov. 30, 2016 at the Wall Street Journal.  The article also ran at the Heritage Foundation.  If you have three and a half minutes, be sure to watch Mary Kissel's accompanying video interview of Spakovsky.

If we want to bring integrity and surety to the election of the president while continuing to use current state election systems, this requirement needs to be imposed: all the ballots cast in the entire nation need to (ultimately) go into the same file, and each ballot needs to have a unique national ID attached to it.

To appreciate the need for ballots to go into a single file, imagine what your bank account would be like if there were separate files for each type of transaction, such as those done by check, by ATM, by telephone, in person at the bank, etc.  It'd be unworkable.  You need a single file for all types of transactions.  We do not have a single file for all the ballots in our presidential election.

As for the "unique national ID," we already have one: the SSN.  It's remarkable that Americans put up with so much stink about voter ID when we already have a nice voter ID.  And we already have a national voter registry: the SSA's database.  If the states were serious about voter fraud, they'd use E-Verify to register voters and to conduct elections.

Here's what the states should be required to do: immediately after the states count the votes for president, they should send a copy of the ballots, each identified with SSN, to D.C. to be put into a standalone electronic file.  With the SSNs, that file will allow the feds to identify illegal alien voters, multiple voters, dead voters, and other types of fraudsters we aren't currently catching.  After the feds have determined the true winner of the presidential election, they would send a report back to the states showing what their true counts were and whom they have on their registries they shouldn't have.  Prosecutions could then proceed.

Does that all seem like some monstrous intrusion into state sovereignty?  If so, then the states should have to demonstrate that all their voters are legal.  With today's election systems, Americans are expected to just accept what the authorities tell them about who won an election.  No real proof is ever brought forth.  It's all rather authoritarian.  With the simple method I've just outlined, Americans could have proof, and we'd have the means to enforce that 1996 law.  After all, the Democrats wouldn't want illegal aliens voting, would they?

Jon N. Hall of ULTRACON OPINION is a programmer from Kansas City.