Media revive pattern of reporting on alleged "voter fraud" concerns, despite lack of evidence
SUMMARY: Media outlets have revived the cyclical practice of highlighting allegations by conservatives of voter fraud, and the primary target of most recent allegations appears to be ACORN, over reports that some people hired by ACORN have submitted false or redundant registration forms. The media are devoting great attention to these charges, even though in past election cycles, charges of voter fraud have largely proven empty.
In recent weeks, media outlets have revived the cyclical practice of highlighting allegations by conservatives of voter fraud. In this election cycle, the primary target of those allegations appears to be the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), over reports that some people hired by ACORN have submitted false or redundant registration forms. Once again, the media are devoting great attention to these charges, even though in past election cycles, charges of voter fraud have largely proven baseless.
Indeed, according to the Nexis news database, in the period October 6-15, the phrase "voter fraud" has appeared in 221 articles in U.S. newspapers, including five Washington Post articles, two New York Times articles, and one USA Today article. Moreover, "voter fraud" has appeared in 43 CNN news transcripts, 31 Fox News transcripts, and four MSNBC transcripts during that time. For example, The Washington Post reported on October 14 that "Republican officials and advisers to Sen. John McCain" accused ACORN of "fomenting voter fraud." It also reported that "[t]he charges have come repeatedly, in news releases, conference calls to reporters and remarks on the campaign trail. Republican National Committee spokesman Danny Diaz called ACORN a 'quasi-criminal group' last week during one of a series of news conferences, charging that the group was committing fraud during its voter-registration drives. 'We don't do that lightly,' RNC chief counsel Sean Cairncross said."
The media's focus on these charges just before elections is not new. A Media Matters for America search of Nexis indicates that numerous stories about voter fraud appeared in major newspapers and on television news in the weeks leading up to the 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006 elections. Yet the U.S. Department of Justice crime statistics cast doubt on the existence of widespread voter fraud. On April 12, 2007, The New York Times reported, "Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews."
In an April 1 American Prospect article, U.S. News & World Report and Washington Monthly contributing editor Art Levine wrote:
Using various tactics -- including media smears, bogus lawsuits, restrictive new voting laws and policies, and flimsy prosecutions -- Republican operatives, election officials, and the GOP-controlled Justice Department have limited voting access and gone after voter-registration groups such as ACORN. Which should come as no surprise: In building support for initiatives raising the minimum wage and kindred ballot measures, ACORN has registered, in partnership with Project Vote, 1.6 million largely Democratic-leaning voters since 2004. All told, non-profit groups registered over three million new voters in 2004, about the same time that Republican and Justice Department efforts to publicize "voter fraud" and limit voting access became more widespread. And attacking ACORN has been a central element of a systematic GOP disenfranchisement agenda to undermine Democratic prospects before each Election Day.
In fact, while a 2005 Senate Republican Policy Committee paper claimed, "[v]oter fraud continues to plague our nation's federal elections, diluting and canceling out the lawful votes of the vast majority of Americans," Justice Department statistics indicate that few actual instances of voter fraud have been prosecuted in recent years. According to a report by the Justice Department's Criminal Division of prosecutions between October 2002 and September 2005, the Justice Department charged 95 people with "election fraud" and convicted 55. Among those, however, just 17 individuals were convicted for casting fraudulent ballots; cases against three other individuals were pending at the time of the report. In addition, the Justice Department convicted one election official of submitting fraudulent ballots and convicted five individuals of registration fraud, with cases against 12 individuals pending at the time of the report. Thirty-two individuals were convicted of other "election fraud" issues, including people convicted of offenses arising from "a scheme to block the phone lines used by two Manchester [New Hampshire] organizations to arrange drives to the polls during the 2002 general election" -- in other words, these convictions were connected to voter suppression efforts, not voter fraud. Several other people listed in the report were convicted of vote buying.
Additionally, a 2007 report by New York University's Brennan Center for Justice stated:
There have been several documented and widely publicized instances in which registration forms have been fraudulently completed and submitted. But it is extraordinarily difficult to find reported cases in which individuals have submitted registration forms in someone else's name in order to impersonate them at the polls. Furthermore, most reports of registration fraud do not actually claim that the fraud happens so that ineligible people can vote at the polls. Indeed, we are aware of no recent substantiated case in which registration fraud has resulted in fraudulent votes being cast.
Nevertheless, media outlets continue to report on allegations of possible voter fraud in advance of elections. For instance, between October 14, 2004, and the November 2 election that year, two USA Today articles, 49 CNN transcripts, and 37 Fox News transcripts containing the term "voter fraud" appear in Nexis. Media Matters searched Nexis for news reports containing the term "voter fraud" in the weeks leading up to the 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006 elections in The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, The Wall Street Journal, and USA Today, and in news transcripts from CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC. (Media Matters did not examine the substantive content of these reports). Results of the search were as followed:
October 14-November 7, 2000
Los Angeles Times: 5
The New York Times: 1
The Washington Post: 1
CNN: 6
Fox News: 2
MSNBC: 1
October 14-November 5, 2002
Los Angeles Times: 8
The Washington Post: 5
USA Today: 1
Fox News: 7
CNN: 6
MSNBC: 1
October 14-November 2, 2004
The Washington Post: 10
Los Angeles Times: 8
The New York Times: 8
USA Today: 2
CNN: 49
Fox News: 37
NBC: 10
MSNBC: 9
ABC: 3
CBS: 3
October 14-November 7, 2006
The New York Times: 6
Los Angeles Times: 2
The Washington Post: 2
USA Today: 2
CNN: 16
Fox News: 9
MSNBC: 4
ABC: 2
CBS: 2
From the April 12, 2007, New York Times article:
Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.
Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year.
Most of those charged have been Democrats, voting records show. Many of those charged by the Justice Department appear to have mistakenly filled out registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, a review of court records and interviews with prosecutors and defense lawyers show.
In Miami, an assistant United States attorney said many cases there involved what were apparently mistakes by immigrants, not fraud.
In Wisconsin, where prosecutors have lost almost twice as many cases as they won, charges were brought against voters who filled out more than one registration form and felons seemingly unaware that they were barred from voting.
One ex-convict was so unfamiliar with the rules that he provided his prison-issued identification card, stamped "Offender," when he registered just before voting.
A handful of convictions involved people who voted twice. More than 30 were linked to small vote-buying schemes in which candidates generally in sheriff's or judge's races paid voters for their support.
A federal panel, the Election Assistance Commission, reported last year that the pervasiveness of fraud was debatable. That conclusion played down findings of the consultants who said there was little evidence of it across the country, according to a review of the original report by The New York Times that was reported on Wednesday.















And why no commentary on the most agregious example of voter roll manipulation -- the 2000 election that fostered the George W. Bush era? Why does everything have to fall on the lap of Dems in this reporting. EXPLORE BOTH SIDES!
Because the Democrats in power rarely say anything about it. The Democrats think that if they force the issue, their supporters will not come out to vote (thinking the election will go to the republicans no matter what they do).
"charges of voter fraud have largely proven empty", tell that to the liberals who screamed about Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004.
Registration fraud hasn't resulted in any significant voter fraud. Disenfranchisement is a different matter.
I know, you deny it happened, so therefore it didn't happen. I know the drill.
MMFA is the one saying charges of voter fraud have proven empty. Disenfranchisement is a liberal code word hauled out to blame someone else for lost elections. I know that drill.
Did you have to stand in line for hours in the rain in 2004 in order to vote due to the purposeful misappropriation of voting machines? Did you see the people give up and leave the polling station because they had to go back to work, pick up the kids, etc.?
I didn't think so. Disenfranchisement is real. It exists. It's not a code word. And I don't blame anyone except the right-wing idiots for Bush being elected twice.
Well, we will see how much liberals complain about the all encompassing evil disenfranchisement after this election, when Obama trounces McCain. There won't be a word about it, you can count on it.
Right, because of people like you who talk about "whining" all the damn time. Nobody's going to complain unless there's something in the balance, because otherwise it propagates the "whining liberal" label that's pushed by right-wingers.
So the reason liberals don't complain when they win is because they don't want rightwingers calling them whiners, but when they lose elections they buck up and take it anyway?
Well, that makes sense.
Sure it does. Why not fight for something that's rightfully yours, at that cost?
Besides, Obama will surely have advantages in Congress. If there is fraud and they win despite it, they don't need to call attention to it. They can address it without putting public pressure on anyone.
Nothing, but then stop pretending it's about election integrity when winning is far more important. If you win, who gives a damn if there is fraud or disenfranchisement. But when you lose, FOUL! lol.....
Sorry, the whining done during losses only rings a little hollow for me.
whining done during losses
It's not "whining" when it's true, especially when it involves the core building block of our ENTIRE SOCIETY! You're intellectually dishonest on this one, pally wally.
Then take it up with Brab, he is the one who said there is no need to call attention to it if you win. So the core building block of our ENTIRE SOCIETY is only at risk when liberals lose elections, not when conservatives do.
I am so impressed with liberal integrity.
If liberals steal elections from conservatives, then the same risk applies. If conservatives cheat and still lose, then the will of the people was still enacted. Steps should still be taken to prevent future fraud by the prevailing party, but making a public fuss about it accomplishes nothing.
People that make public fusses about something only when they are on the short end of the stick, and then tape their mouths shut when they come out on top get no sympathy, nor are they given any serious credibility from me.
I outgrew your faulty logic after I left my elementary school playground. Grow up.
Of course you can't get it, because whining and blaming others is engrained in your psyche, it's always far easier than taking responsibility for yourself. In this case, election losses. I understand, I really do.
Yes, I'm familiar with your emotional argument.
Nice catch, tommy.
mmfa has now put to rest all the conspiracy theories about republicans stealing elections. And right on cue came the usual partisan apologists and excuse makers...trying to rationalize the unrational.
It makes for a nice Thursday afternoon chortle.
Don't confuse "vote fraud" with "vote suppression." They're related, but very different.
It's about potential benefits vs. potential damages. If you don't stand to gain anything, you don't open yourself up to the damages. Like I said, they could deal with it without drawing great attention to it, because that attention is not necessary to the process at that point. Obviously when you lose, you won't have the power necessary to correct it, and so drawing attention to the outrage is all-important.
That's a much more sensible framework than "winning is far more important".
Wow, if that isn't the most lawlerly wiggling out of admitting winning is more important than election integrity that I have ever seen. Nice job, but your "sensible framework" is pure baloney, we can see through that jibberish. You and your liberal buddies don't give a damn about election fraud or voter disenfranchisement when you win elections, it's only when you lose that it gets hauled out.
Do you think we are actually that stupid to swallow that potential benefit vs potential damage silliness? It sounds cute, but it's not selling, sorry.
In other words, you don't have anything meaningful to say, so you'll fall back on your usual tactic of attributing motives.
How about I dumb it down for you? It's called "picking your battles". It's a common concept in the adult world.
I don't care what you call it, bottom line is it's all about winning, which trumps all else.
If you are having such trouble admitting that and instead you choose to hide under some lofty notion about election integrity by reciting courtroom closing argument type nonsense, then so be it.
You just come across as disingenuous and partisan. Again.
How is it disingenuous and partisan to say that whoever gets elected should try to prevent future fraud? Do you think about what you say at all, or are you on auto-pilot?
Huh? The disingenuous and partisan part was in response to your "picking your battles" concept. Get it?
You can't identify what's supposed to be gained by complaining while you win, while you can deal with the problem once you take power. I wouldn't expect conservatives to do that either, because it risks a poor impression for no necessary purpose.
I'm sorry if all this seems "lawyerly" to you, but it's a perfectly sensible argument. It would be nice if you could actually address something instead of throwing out empty accusations.
What? This has nothing to do with taking power, it is about not complaining about voter integrity issues when you win, only when you lose........why can't you stick to the topic for once, I swear, your penchant for diverting arguments is staggering, and downright pathetic. I have no idea what is in your head when you come to argue with me, but it's not logic and relevant discourse, it's nonsense and invented distractions. So, stop your whining about empty accusations.
And go back to that list I gave you on why you get what you deserve from me, this is a great example of that.
If you win, you take power. That's the scenario you keep talking about, so how it's "off-topic" will be tough to explain.
It's not about winning or losing or who takes power. It's about a principled desire for election and voter integrity regardless of those election results. To dumb it down for you, it shouldn't matter if you win or lose, it's how you play the game.
If you can't get it now, veer off topic with someone else.
It's not about winning or losing? Your entire argument is based on winning or losing. It obviously makes a difference in what your options are in dealing with the problem.
Your argument is that the only way that you can express a desire for voter integrity is to raise a fuss in the media. If you win...then...you have power...so you can deal with the problem...when you take office. Therefore, you don't have to raise a fuss in the media.
Have you gone off the rails? My entire argument is about integrity, regardless of who wins or loses. You see everything through your precious Democrats, so if they win then they can deal with fraud while in power, or some such idiotic notion.
For the last time, I don't care who wins or loses, voting integrity is more important to me than that. Obviously seeing Demcrats elected, even fraudently, is your primary goal. Good for you.
Right, and you can have integrity without complaining. This is the point you can't address.
So I want to see "Demcrats" elected "fraudently"? Really?
"If liberals steal elections from conservatives, then the same risk applies."
"How is it disingenuous and partisan to say that whoever gets elected should try to prevent future fraud? Do you think about what you say at all, or are you on auto-pilot?"
You just answered that last question. I can also refer back to how you have nothing meaningful to say, so you attribute motives. Nice work.
"If there is fraud and they win despite it, they don't need to call attention to it"
"It's called "picking your battles"
Nice try, you are more concerned with Democrats being elected at any cost, you have as much as admitted it in the two quotes of yours above. Integrity takes a back seat, or in your words, no need to call attention to it.
Like I said, take a rest......
You know full well that politics dictate actions. There are things you don't do and say in the public sphere. You know this. This is what "picking your battles" is all about. You don't make a public scene about something you can deal with in relative private, after you take power. That's all risk, no reward. That's stupid, and you don't do it.
This explanation is perfectly straightforward, and is completely consistent with electoral integrity.
And why are you talking about Democratic fraud now? Your scenario is Republican fraud that is ineffective. Did you get a little confused?
Here's an example:McCain looked like a whiner because he complained about John Lewis during the debate. He should deal with that in private. He doesn't know how to "pick his battles". He gained nothing by doing that.
I already know you agree.
"You can't identify what's supposed to be gained by complaining while you win,"
And incidentally, if that isn't the most convoluted asinine mish-mashed bunch of doublespeak nonsense I have ever read, nothing is.
Take a break from these boards, I suggest in all sincerity. You need a rest.
What is that quote supposed to prove?
It's perfectly plain English. You're talking about the idea of Democrats complaining about fraud when they win. You can't tell me what's supposed to be gained by that. I have no idea what you find confusing about this.
What is gained is more important than Democrats or Republicans winning, for crying out loud, that cannot escape you? It is about preserving and maintaining the integrity of elections and ensuring the electorate is secure in that integrity, forget who wins or loses, for once.
Enough, you don't get it, I am sorry.
You can make efforts to preserve integrity of elections when you win without raising a sense of public outrage. So there's nothing to be gained by complaining publicly.
Exactly! Not only did they drag it out, they never PROVED it either! In '00 and '04 it popped up but nothing ever came of it because it was the left crying wolf once again.
Right now you have KNOWN problems especially in Ohio and the left wants to sweep it under the rug. Itegrity. LIve it, love it , learn it.
Amazing, after pointing out the sheer idiocy of that position, your post shows up.
How was it supposed to be proven? Scalia voted against a recount because it would tarnish the win for Bush, one of the strangest opinions ever handed down. The scrubbing of the voter rolls in Florida, the butterfly ballot, the penny-loafer riot are matters of fact. Whether conservatives in power chose to be honest in dealing with those things or not, they actually did happen.
As for the KNOWN problems in Ohio, the people who registered phony names should be held accountable. But remember who you're talking to. The idea that Bush's brother and Florida campaign chair aren't objective servants to the process is a "conspiracy theory". He's certainly not going to accept the idea that registration fraud means anything, because that would require an actual conspiracy theory, by your own admission:"This could easily be pulled off, but there would have to be many people in on the fix."
Heard on the radio today the Ohio found evidence for four cases of voter fraud. Yup really big problem there. Unlike say, voter caging, voter purging, and voter denial.
All those naughty federal attorney's who wouldn't persue bogus voter fraud cases, and paid for that error, with their termination.
ray?
Nothing, but then stop pretending it's about election integrity when winning is far more important. If you win, who gives a damn if there is fraud or disenfranchisement. But when you lose, FOUL! lol.....
If Obama wins and there's voting interferences, Dems will still complain.
But there's very little voter fraud. What Dems complain about is disenfranchisement, which never seems to happen in Republican neighborhoods. When it does, they can complain too.
They're not talking about Florida.
Disenfranchisement means taking away someone's right to vote. Those who were scrubbed from the voter rolls wrongfully fall under that category, no matter how much you deny it.
What you're describing is election fraud which is different from voter fraud.
Here's a movie you might want to check out.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081002/REVIEWS/810049997
Amen Brabantio......
I explained this in other posts as well..... I guess it needs to be said here too:
Since ACORN is mandated under law to hand in each and every registration application to the state, I don't see how they are commiting fraud?
If someone fills it out using the name Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck and doing so because they will get paid for a 'filled' out application... this is voter registration fraud!
Also:
1) If that someone actually showed up and tried to vote claiming to be either Mickey or Donald he would then be comitting another crime: Voter fraud!
2) Do you not trust local government in any form to believe that someone at the registrar's office won't pick up on that and that they would then toss it out?
3) Because IF ACORN were to toss out those forms that had Mickey's or Donald's name on them, they (ACORN) would be facing fines and potential criminal charges...because it is not up to them to decide what applications are legit or not, it is the government (that would be us)
4) So.... as I said earlier... the only fraud perpetrated were by those idiots that ACORN paid to have said forms filled out!
5) Do you not see the assinine attempt here by the rightwing to try and make a firecracker into a mushroom cloud?
6) Based on that..... ACORN did nothing WRONG or ILLEGAL! Seems to me they followed the law, if anything.
There's really no sane explanation of how this is supposed to be "stealing an election". It's doubly pathetic considering the race isn't really even that close. Electoral-vote.com shows Obama with 250 solid electoral votes. He's ahead by up to 14 points in the national polls. The Senate is estimated near 60 seats for Dems. This isn't like the general public is undecided, this is clearly the backlash to the Bush years. To suggest in this climate that Obama's highly-probable win is tainted by fraud is literally incredible.
Many of these people are the same ones who said we should just "get over" Florida in 2000, which was a case of clear electoral fraud. The same people who dismissed the scrubbing of the voter rolls, the butterfly ballot and the penny-loafer riot out of hand are now crying about losing because some imaginary people are registered to vote. It really is amazing to behold.
It's just about on the same plane as people who take an item about concern over registration fraud and voter fraud and try to declare that MMfA is saying that there was no election fraud in 2000 or 2004. Either stupid or intellectually dishonest on a World Championship level.
Spare me your phony outrage. You are sp entrenched in the far left wing of your Democratic party that your overriding concern has nothing to do with election integrity, but it's rather getting Democrats elected, at any cost.
You aren't fooling me with all your transparent indignation about how Democrats will tackle and fix the problems once they are in power so no sense publicly bellyaching about it now. If you think I swallow that baloney, you're nuts. You can dress it up and package it with lofty sanctimonious platitudes, but I know better.
Too funny.......
Right, never mind that I explicitly said that this applies to both parties. You got contradicted, therefore I must be partisan.
Again, why on earth are you talking about "Democrats elected at any cost"? What is the "cost" of Republicans committing ineffective fraud?
You keep bringing up the butterfly ballot, but it was DEMS who made that ballot. Nice try. I seem to remember Dems trying to get absentee ballots thrown out also. Those would have been heavily in the R column due to the military presence in the panhandle.
Less time watching revisionist HBO specials and more time reading what actually happened!
That's pretty questionable. The woman credited with it picked the Dem label when campaigning for a job left by a Democrat, from what I've seen. Even if Dems were to design a ballot that clearly worked against them (for some inexplicable reason), it was illegal. Objectively, it was grounds for a revote in Palm Beach, which never happened. That falls on Bush and Harris. I don't find it conceivable that someone designed a ballot that was both illegal and obviously damaging to their own party, and I don't know how anyone else does either. Is that really supposed to be some totally separate event from the acts of vote suppression that went on? Ludicrous, at best.
I seem to remember that Dems were trying to use the same standard that Repubs were using for throwing out absentee ballots. What's the problem?
Hanging chads equal voter fraud???
No don't answer! I need to chew that one over for awhile.
There are many examples of purging voters. Voting under a false identity is much harder. Especially if you happen to be named Mickey Mouse.
Not according to this guy -
http://blog.cleveland.com/pdopinion/2008/10/votefraudseeding_acorn_deserve.html
Foghorn posted a link:
The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now -- one of the prime sponsors of the mortgage meltdown that's throttling the economy -- is big into the elections biz. It started off this presidential campaign with the goal of getting a Democrat into the White House, and it's particularly keen to do so now that the Democrat with a chance is its old pal and former lawyer, Barack Obama. Plus, his campaign is paying an ACORN subgroup $832,000 for a get-out-the-vote effort.
I like how MMfA and others like to neglect this little fact that that ACORN is basically an arm of the democratic party.
Registering voters REGARDLESS of political affiliation makes them an arm of the Democratic party? Please, come back to reality.
If you believe for one second that ACORN is registering voters in republican strongholds, I have some land to sell you in FLA!
All you have to do is look at the demographics for the counties that are being scrutinized. It really is that easy.
Your comparison is asinine. The republican party was actively purging eligible Democratic voters from the voters rolls in order to steal elections (election fraud) and they're still persuing that agenda today. Vote fraud (when an individual votes twice, when "Mickey Mouse" votes or when illegal immigrants vote) is rarely ever done.
Could someone clear up a technical point for me? Is one officially "registered to vote" when you fill out the form and give it to ACORN or another group, when the form is transferred to the local Election Board, or when the Election Board has reviewed the form and added you to the voter list?
Thanks.
That is how it is supposed to work. What is happening in places like Ohio is same day registration with no scrutiny. It is ripe for fraud.
The divide on this issue is easy. Democrats will do whatever it takes to increase voter turnout, while Republicans will do whatever it takes to decrease voter turnout. Stats show less turnout favors the GOP. Why? Because lower turnout means the Democratic base among the poor city dwellers and minorities stayed home.
Turnout has nada to do with voter fraud, which is very rare or voter registration fraud, which is less rare but inconsequential. Elmer Fudd ain't voting in Indiana.
What it boils down to is that the Democratic movement to increase registration is a step toward increasing the turnout of REAL, VALID votes. Think of it this way: if all the DNC wanted to do was stuff ballot boxes then they'd do that. Why register anyone? Getting REAL people to cast VALID votes is hard work and takes lots of money to fund, including hiring people who are habitual slackers. Those are the perpetrators of ACORN's infamous "voter fraud". We are talking about a handful of forged registration forms vs. MILLIONS of valid ones. It's a non-issue. Until the GOP makes it one. Why? To validate their efforts to SUPPRESS voters through caging schemes and software designed to cast a wide net and remove valid voters from the rolls in what parts of the country? Those likely to vote Democratic.
I'll buy the GOP's line about preserving the integrity of the vote when they start caging votes in white Republican districts. Till then, it stinks of dirty tactics, period.
Randy
I invite Republicans to file a number of invalid false voter registration cards equal to that of ACORN as long as you stop caging votes and purging voter rolls with that crappy software. Didn't think so.
Randy
Every election year, we are innundated with complaints from Rerpublicans about "Voter Registration Fraud". This crying Wolf is getting old. If there is such a fraud going on, why has the DOJ not indicted anyone for Voter Fraud? There is a connection. These ACORN solicitors probably get paid by the number of registrations they bring in. So they bring in Micky Mouse and the Dallas Cowboys. The ACORN Management reviewed and flagged these registrations as phony. They turned them over to the State Registrars along with the valid registrations. It was the Republicans who decided that there was criminal activity involved here. They want you to NOT think about the economy or Iraq. Please put your brains in gear before you spout this nonsense.
HERE is the evidence of voter fraud
'Washington Post', 'L.A. Times' endorse Obama
Ah yes, more examples of the MSM right wing bias! lol
Link?
Never mind, I decided to find it on my own. It's a press release from the New Mexico GOP. Is that really supposed to pass for "evidence"? If there's something to the story, you should provide that instead.
From a site keeping track of endorsements
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003875230
JOHN McCAIN
16 newspapers total
1,502,163 daily circulation
BARACK OBAMA
51 newspapers total
6,299,363 daily circulation
THE MSM IS LIBERAL DEMOCRAT!
Rt you are registered to vote when the county determines that you are old enough to vote, live in the county you register in and that you are a citizen of the state you live in and a citizen of the united states. I don't know about where you live but my county sends out registration cards every year so you are aware of where you are supposed to vote in elections. If that doesn't help you I suggest you call your county clerk's office they would be able to tell you how your state does it.
THe only people I have heard whining over and over about voter fraud is the right wing media as the polls show more and more a victory for Obama.
So the previous comment "People that make public fusses about something only when they are on the short end of the stick, and then tape their mouths shut when they come out on top get no sympathy, nor are they given any serious credibility from me. " - should apply to the Republicans this time. Sorry.
The election will not be close. But the revolution WILL be televised. ;-)