Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
Voter Fraud Some people are concerned about voter fraud in Iowa. This addresses some of those concerns.by Alexander Edward
(Libertarian)
Saturday, January 5, 2008
In a recent article I wrote about the Iowa Caucuses, I received some comments that urged me to look in to the possibility of election fraud as a reason that Ron Paul did not do as well as we had hoped. This idea is ridiculous. That is the mildest way I can put it.
One of the commentors cited Alex Jones as his source regarding this, and while I appreciate Jones' support of Ron Paul, I find he often creates more problems with the movement than solutions. Jones is incredible at connecting dots. Sometimes he really does find something interesting. However, most of the time, he is too zealous about connecting things. It is very important to approach Jones' work with a skeptical mind.
Apparently, someone claiming to be an ex-FBI agent (Ted Gunderson) contacted Jones and suggested that their was evidence of voter fraud at the Iowa Caucuses. I looked up Gunderson's website and wikipedia, as quick references, and he doesn't look like the most reliable source. I'd approach anything he says with even more skepticism than Jones.
At any rate, back to the Iowa Caucuses. The assertion is that, somehow, Ron Paul was cheated out of his correct placement in the Iowa Caucuses. However, this conclusion is illogical based on the results: Ron Paul gained double digits and beat Rudy Giuliani. If someone was rigging the results, they were doing a damn poor job of it.
The goal, if you were to rig the first in the nation caucus, would be to make the candidate you were attacking seem like they were not viable or the candidate you're advocating seem unbeatable. We'll assume this is an 'attack' rigging. Why then, would you allow Ron Paul to gain in comparison to his polling? Tying his results to recent polls would cement in peoples' minds that he really is an 'internet only' candidate and make his position un-winnable. It's also believable, because there are statistics to back up the results! Secondly, why would you allow Ron Paul to beat someone who is considered a national front runner? Giuliani's tally in Iowa was dreadful!
No, there is no evidence that any fowl play happened in Iowa.
Asserting that there was or is some kind of conspiracy to exclude Ron Paul is childish and hurts our campaign.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 17 thumbs so far
2008 Alexander Edward, all rights reserved.
Published: Saturday, January 5, 2008
Last modified: Saturday, January 5, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Alexander Edward only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Alexander Edward is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I will agree that the Iowa results are probably accurate. That said... I'll address your later points.
 The trick when manipulating vote results would be to change them in a way that helps/hurts certain candidates without being too obvious. Everyone expected Paul to outperform the polls to at least some degree. If he were actually earning 15% of the vote, it would look far too suspect to place him at 7%. When it comes to Giuliani... he is the perfect place from which to take votes. He was expected to do horribly in Iowa. If he were coming in at, say, 8%... take half his votes and give them to Thompson and McCain, and you've effectively moved Paul from 3rd to 5th without looking too suspicious.
 So... hypothetically, the results we are seeing make sense from a vote fraud point of view... but I don't think much, if any, vote fraud occurred, personally. I think the evangilecals came out in huge numbers for Huckabee, and that is that.
Your point about "no evidence of foul play" in Iowa is all well and good, as long as you at least equally acknowledge that there is also no evidence that foul play did not occur. As the saying goes, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
I agree that in the absence of evidence, trying to make a stink about "Voter Fraud" would harm the campaign. In the Iowa contest, Ron Paul did so well that it probably doesn't matter in the long run. However, this is only the first of many races, and Paul supporters must be aware of the the gravity of the vote fraud issue and must be vigilant as each of the polling events takes place. Any time you have a closed, unmonitored, "black-box" process, the distinct possibility of fraud exists and must be guarded against.
I invite you to check out my series of articles (still in progress) on the subject, the first of which is "How The US Became A Third World Country."
I disagree with you about Alex Jones. "Who is Ron Paul?" was pitched by Alex Jones and Arron Russo(RIP) from the very beginning of the campaign. Ron Paul wouldn't be where he is now if it wasn't for the rEVOLution supporting the campaign
Your points make sense. However, my thinking is that since I didn't physically see the votes being counted, I am safe to assume that they COULD have been tampered with. Again, that's just me.
"No, there is no evidence that any fowl play happened in Iowa"
And how pray tell do you define "fowl play"? There were Diebold machines used. Diebold machines can be easily hacked. THE VERY FACT THAT ELECTIONS ARE CALCULATED INSIDE A MACHINE, THEREFORE NO EYEWITNESSES TO THE TABULATING, MAKES ALL RESULTS HIGHLY SUSPECT. The only way to get a FAIR election is with the physical paper trail of paper ballots and OPEN PUBLIC TABULATING.
You will see the big difference Ron Paul gets between the Diebold states like Iowa and the non-Diebold states like New Hampshire, California & Florida
If you don't think votes wern't taken from Ron Paul and given to the war makers puppet, John McCain, you're doomed to repeat history. Look around this site. Look at the screen shots that show discrepencies. Look at how the republicans reported the votes. http://www.bbvforums.org/forums/messages/1954/71119.html?1199418905
Ron Paul doesn't have a chance when Kissinger backs McCain. Election fraud by neo-cons has and will continue to steer elections
On Alex Jones' show today, Bev Harris of BlackBoxVoting.org has shown that the results for Paul were indeed correct. In one New Hampshire precinct, ZERO votes for Paul were recorded. Ms. Harris contacted them, and finally, the person responsible had to admit that instead of ZERO, Mr. Paul had at least 31 I think.
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/
"The head clerk of the New Hampshire town of Sutton has been forced to admit that Ron Paul received 31 votes yet when the final amount was transferred to a summary sheet and sent out to the media, the total was listed as zero. The fiasco throws the entire primary into doubt and could lead to a re-count."
As I understand, a recount would cost 69,000 dollars and Paul would have to pay, but with over 20 million dollars in donations, reason would suggest this would be well worth it, both to discourage future "mistakes" and to set the final count in New Hampshire right.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Alexander Edward, all rights reserved.