Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

How the Democrats have structurally engineered voter turnout in their favor

ACORN fraud sent several officers of the organization to jail for voter registration fraud
ACORN fraud sent several officers of the organization to jail for voter registration fraud

The far left figured out decades ago that the structure of the voting system may help determine who turns out for elections, and that if it could be restructured in certain ways, that certain sectors of voters would turnout in higher percentages. I will use a very easy to understand real life example from my experience in campus politics while a college student to illustrate the concept before discussing how the left re-engineering the voting system in this country to create larger turnout among their target voters.

Back in 1992 when I was a graduate student in political science at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, I ran as a candidate for president of the Graduate Student Association (GSA), which was the graduates student's branch of the Student Government Association (SGA) there. I had one opponent for the office, a first year law school student, who was running to succeed the incumbent (who was not running for reelection), who was a second year law school student.

The law school had its own building on campus, and law school students spent almost all their time there, and there were about 300 of them enrolled there. Spread across almost all the rest of the campus, attending classes in various academic buildings, were about 10,000 graduate students who were students in all the other various graduate departments on campus.

My opponent campaigned only among his classmates in the law school and I tried to attract the votes of all graduate students including those in law school. Apparently he knew something I did not. I figured whatever level the over all turnout was, I was appealing to a larger constituency I should easily win.

What I realized on election day, was, that the students at the law school had their own SGA voting table in their building, making it easy for them to vote, or perhaps tougher for them to avoid being asked to vote. On the rest of the campus, the voting locations were set up in cafeterias, dorm buildings, and the student center, all of which were places mostly frequented by undergraduate students. None of the other academic buildings that housed any of the other graduate school departments had their own voting location in their building like the law students did. What few graduate students that actually voted had to go and find a voting location in the places they rarely visited on campus while the law students had their own right there in the building they where they attended classes every day.

When the votes were counted, almost 70 percent of law school students voted, because it was easy and convenient with a voting table located in their own building, or just over 200 out of about 300 students in the law school. My opponent received all but three or four of those votes. Our of about 10,000 graduate students, even the most miniscule of turnout among them should have yielded me more than enough votes to win. But only about 175 graduate students out of 10,000 actually voted, and I got all but five of them. That is less than two percent turnout, and it was because none of those people had a SGA voting table anywhere near where they spent their days on campus. That few that voted, out of those 10,000 as I did, had to go find a place to cast their vote. So I lost the election by about 30 votes out of about 380 total cast between both candidates. I suspect it was design to have a voting table in the law school to maximize the odds of a law school student winning the position.

Over the last 30 or so years, the Democrats have quietly worked to do this kind of restructuring of the nation's voting system to make it easier for voters in their key constituencies to turnout and vote. By massively increasing the odds of their voters turning out, not to mention the separate issue of enabling easier voter fraud, the far left has rigged the system to make it more possible for them to win national elections.

One of the major ways this was done was allowing essentially the trading of welfare benefits for voter registrations, at social services and welfare offices, which was mandated under The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993, which was signed into law early in the presidency of Bill Clinton.

Even the objective description of the law in Wikipedia clearly illustrates the agenda behind passing the NVRA. Wikipedia describes it as, “A voter registration movement was spearheaded by the husband and wife team of Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward in the early 1980s in response to the Reagan administration. Both of them college professors and liberal activists, it was Piven and Cloward's belief that through government implementation of more active registration proposals, it would increase voter turnout rates which had been on a steady decline since the monumental election of 1896.”

The same article also said, “The NVRA is designed to help people of all demographics to vote despite their socioeconomic situations and backgrounds.[1] Political parties, in particular Democrats, were hoping that the NVRA would reduce racial disparities and close the electoral gap by including more minorities, low income earners, individuals on public assistanceand other individuals reluctant to vote.”

So clearly the NRVA, also commonly called the “motor voter” law because it also required voter registration be available at state departments of motor vehicles, was about requiring voter registrations in places like welfare offices where some of the core constituencies that are believed to be potential Democrat voters could be registered to vote. Once they got the historically non-voting population to vote, Democrats believed they could get them to vote and at the same time, get them to vote almost entirely Democrat.

Writing a special report about voter fraud for Accuracy in Media, James Simpson described the NRVA this way, “The NVRA was authored by socialists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, and many believe it was deliberately constructedto pave the way for ACORN-style massive registration fraud. The pair is notorious for theCloward/Piven Crisis Strategy—a plan to overwhelm government with demandsfor welfare spending, thereby leading to systemic crisis. Cloward and Piven helped launchACORNto advance their strategy.”

Simpson further outlined the purpose of the law, writing, “They also had other intentions for those burgeoning welfare rolls. “If organizers can deliver millions of dollars in cash benefits to the ghetto masses,”they wrote, “it seems reasonable to expect that the masses will deliver their loyalties to their benefactors.” Cloward and Pivendeveloped the Motor Voteridea to simplify voter registration for this demographic. In 1993, it became law. SuccessiveNRVA lawsuitshave forced state agencies to becomede facto taxpayer-funded voter registration drives.”

The changes in voter registration also allowed activists to more easily register others to vote, leading to the massive voter registration fraud committed under the banner of ACORN in the 2000s.

Democrats not only knew it was important to get many more millions of their votes into the ballot boxes, no matter how that was accomplished, but to also insure they would control the process over which votes were counted, and how it was decided who would actually oversee the counting of the votes. After the dispute over whether George W. Bush or Albert Gore, Jr. won the electoral votes of Florida that decided the 2000 presidential election, the Democrats decided (even though the facts and all the media-sponsored recounts of the actual votes showed Bush won the state legitimately) they would tell every Bush stole the election via the Florida recount, and they would never let that happen again. This really meant, they would develop a process by which any election that was close enough to go into the recount process, they would control that process and make sure the recounts always came out in their favor. Never again would a close election be won by a Republican.

One of the earliest tests of the ability of the Democrats to steal a close election played out in Washington State in 2004 when Republican Dino Rossi was leading on election night against Democrat Christine Gregoire by a razor thin margin that required an automatic recount because it was so close. Rossi lead by 261 votes out of 2.8 million cast.

Here's how Wikipedia describes what happened, “In the November 2 election, over 2.8 million votes were cast for Governor. After the initial vote count, Rossi led Democrat Christine Gregoire by 261 votes. Washington State law required a recount because of the small margin. After the second count, Rossi again led, but by a smaller margin of 42 votes. After a third count, done by hand, Gregoire took a 129 vote lead (expanded to a 133 vote lead after Justice Bridges' decision threw out 4 votes for Rossi). King County's election department was sued by the Rossi campaign for its handling of ballots, including untracked use of a "ballot-on-demand" printing machine. Even before the election date, the U.S. Department of Justice threatened to sue Washington State for failing to mail military ballots overseas, generally assumed to be Republican votes.”

This process repeated itself in many states, and in many elections for Congress, Senator, and Governor, including the 2010 race won in the same fashion by rigger recount process by Al Franken in Minnesota.

What was common in all these cases were far left Secretaries of State elected at the state level, that were in most instances allied with and affiliated with ACORN, and were the product of another project of the far left. That project was a George Soros-funded effort called the Secretary of State Project. It's goal was simple, to elect in each state the Secretary of State, or the officers that oversaw the elections, from the far left ACORN faction of the Democrats party so the far left would have full control over vote counting and the process of conducting elections in those states. And the result was, when elections were so close as to go into mandated recounts, the left could be confident these secretaries of state would insure the Democrat candidate would always win. The strategy was simple, just recount the votes until the Democrats leads, and then quickly certify the election as won by the Democrat.

The movement to pass voter ID laws is the response to those who want fair elections and to eliminate voter fraud, which is why the far left fights desperately such proposals by calling them “racist,” which is entirely absurd, because they know the real reason they oppose such reforms is because voter ID reduces voter fraud. There is no other reason to oppose this, no one is denied voting by a voter ID requirement, and the states that have such laws do everything possible to insure that even those voters who do not have a drivers license can get a free state-created picture ID to use at the polls when asked to show their picture ID. The public isn't buying the “racism” argument and the far left knows the whole debate over voter ID laws further exposes their desire to continue to engage in fraud to win elections.

Voters need to understand that simple voter fraud itself is only a small part of the overall strategy by which the left, for the last 30 years or more, has sought to engineer and rig the entire voting and election process to increase their odds of winning elections. Democrats are all about gaining and keeping government power, by any means necessary, and they truly do believe that the ends justify the means. They will do anything, and literally anything, to obtain and keep control of political power, including cheating, voter fraud, and rigging of elections and recounts of elections. Anything necessary, they are willing to do it.

The best place for us “right wing extremists” is the Conservative OPEN FORUM click the LIKE button and join the discussion!

No Phony Scandals here, join us for informative discussion about Obama Scandals.

Join us to defeat the extreme far left, please join our new Facebook group: STOP -- Stopping Tyrannical Oppressive Progressives.

Like Rush Limbaugh? Are you a student in the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies? Join Realville on Facebook!

If you liked this article, please join Dean's facebook group to read more articles like it.

Stay on the right side of issues, visit my QstarNews Facebook page and like it and share it here

Outraged at how Barack Obama is destroying America? Join Us Here to oppose Obama!

Please also follow Dean on Twitter and Facebook.

Report this ad