The Margin of Theft

I’ve been using the term Margin of Theft as it relates to elections. Let me be clear about what I mean. Consider the following election scenario.

After the legitimate votes have been countered, the results are as follows:

Candidate R 1,227,500
Candidate D 1,225,000
Candidate 3 50,000

It turns out that most of the vote counters are affiliated with the D party, so they begin to look for “missing” votes, and they “find” them in a county where the D:R voter registration is 10:1 and the usual vote favors the Ds by 5:1. The actual turnout in the county was a bit low (lack of enthusiasm for Candidate D), so they are able to “find” 13,000 votes without exceeding the total registration numbers for the county. When those votes are added, the result becomes

Candidate R 1,229,500
Candidate D 1,235,000
Candidate 3 51,000

That’s the sort of fraud that is possible when the vote between to top two candidates is only 0.2 percent apart. If the same 2,500,000 voter turnout had left larger margin, the search of “missing” votes would have had to expand beyond safe precincts into more competitive areas. A 2 percent spread in hard to overcome. A 4 percent spread is safer.

Go vote. One of the best things we can do to make sure the election is fair is to cast our own votes that can be legitimately counted rather than leave our unvoted registration as a vote to be “found.”

2 thoughts on “The Margin of Theft

  1. Pingback: Wednesday Linkage « Bacon Time !!!!!!

Leave a Reply