Experts, mainly of the leftist variety, tell us there is very little voter fraud and we should not worry our pretty little heads about it. Can this be true?
One way to think about this is to ask the question: is a vote valuable? The question practically answers itself. Of course a vote is valuable. How do we know this? Because contenders for public office spend huge sums of money to get votes.
Many local elections, like civil court judge in NYC, cost tens of thousands of dollars. Statewide races typically cost several million dollars. In anticipation of the 2016 elections, Charles Schumer, the senior U.S. senator, already has a war chest of nearly $24 million. The 2016 presidential race will almost certainly cost more than $3 BBBillion.
Oh, of course your vote is not terribly valuable and nobody is going to pay you a lot of money for it. But to conclude that all votes together are not valuable is like saying money is not valuable because a $1 bill is only worth, well, $1. Many people would not cross the street to pick up a $1 bill off the sidewalk, but it would be absurd to conclude that money is not valuable. In the same way, one vote may mean little, but all votes together are worth a whole lot, and people spend a lot of money to get them.
Valuable things are susceptible of being stolen. You would not leave your wallet in some open public place, unattended. You do not leave your car or house unlocked. In most places, you wouldn't even leave your bicycle unlocked. And if your money is not safely locked away in a bank, you have at least carefully hidden it in a mattress or some other safe place.
Why all the care with valuable things? Because somebody is likely to steal them, if he can. Valuable things get stolen, if you are not careful. That's the way the world works.
So, to suggest that votes are not susceptible of being stolen is like saying that the laws of thermodynamics apply everywhere in the known universe, except Washington, D.C. It is to suggest that all valuable things are susceptible of being stolen, except votes. Well, why does that make sense?
One of the reasons votes are valuable is because they exist in the confluence of money and power. People spend a lot of money to get votes because votes are the key to enormous power, and more money. Just how do you think the Clintons made $34 million on government salaries? And, it has long been observed that people who are greedy for political power are more avaricious and less scrupulous than people who are greedy merely for financial power.
Consequently, to suppose there is no voter fraud is to believe that, unlike all other human beings, especially unscrupulous people who are greedy for political power are less likely to steal valuable things. I think not.
Ah, but where's the proof people, especially leftists, will ask. There does seem to be little proof of voter fraud. This, too, is easy to understand. The people who are responsible for guarding the vote are the people who are already winners inside the existing system. Like the fox who guards the hen house, they have no incentive to find and stop voter fraud since they are the beneficiaries. Voter fraud is working just fine for them, thanks. Of course you will not find proof of voter fraud if you are not looking for it.
Perhaps you think I am being rather closed-minded about this, since I continue to believe in voter fraud despite a paucity (certainly not a complete absence) of proof. Guilty as charged. I put the idea of no voter fraud into the class of ideas I call "Henny Youngman Hypotheses."
Henny Youngman had a routine in which he would rush out on stage breathing heavily, he would mop his brow, and say, "I just flew in from Chicago, and boy! Are my arms tired." And people laughed.
Why did people laugh? Youngman was implying that he could flap his arms and fly like a bird. What's so funny about that? What if that were true? The possibility of a man flying like a bird is so remote, nobody in his right mind is going to spend even a minute investigating the claim. Some ideas are just not worth exploring.
That is just how I feel about the assertion that the vote does not need to be protected. You would have to be some kind of gullible fool, or a Democrat, to take that seriously.
No comments:
Post a Comment