Ask Auntie Pinko
December 5, 2002

Dear Auntie Pinko,

Recently I've seen a lot of credible-looking information that there were lots of voting irregularities in the last election - not least the notorious 18,181 number that cropped up for lots of winning Republicans. Some of this information also claims the companies which make these new, paperless voting machines are largely owned by members of the rabid Christian right.

How accurate is this information, and what do you think about the extent of recent electoral fraud? I'd like to cite it when I discuss the election and the LACK of mandate which the GOP has now, but unlike hate-radio hosts, I'd like my words to be based on fact, not drivel. What's your idea?

Dave from Orlando

Dear Dave,

You and other readers raise interesting questions on this same topic, so I'd like to make a couple of points about the electoral process in general, as well as answering your questions.

One thing Auntie Pinko cannot speak to, however, is the accuracy of any information you may have on voting irregularities. I have not done extensive research on the subject, alas. I am sorry to fail you, but I suggest that a couple of hours tracking sources over the Internet might be helpful to you in estimating the accuracy of your data. That said, on the whole issue of voting irregularities, there is a lot to say.

First, there undoubtedly were voting irregularities. There always are, because human beings of both parties and all viewpoints are fallible and venal. I am certain that both Republican and Democratic people attempted to influence voting procedures and vote counts in unethical and sometimes downright illegal ways, and some of them probably succeeded in their attempts.

But the issue here is not voting irregularities, per se. It is the scale of those irregularities, and the degree to which the highest levels of the parties' leadership actively participate in, or passively encourage, them. In other words, has voting fraud moved from a tool employed by desperate (and despicable) individual candidates and their local campaigns, to an element of Party policy?

That the question can be sincerely raised at all should send a big, bright, RED ALERT to our political leadership, because the damage here goes far beyond any factual reality. But let me come back to that later, and address the factual reality issues first.

Can you think, Dave, of any reason why the Democratic Party leadership would not vigorously pursue a meticulous, evidence- and fact-based investigation into the possibility of large-scale voting irregularities? Auntie Pinko can think of two, and in today's nasty, ugly, counter-productive political climate I regret to say that both are believable. The first reason is that, having collected all the information from their vote fraud hotline and from poll monitors throughout the country, they honestly don't believe that there is evidence of more than the usual petty tampering (although that's certainly bad enough!)

I'd really rather not discuss the other reason.

Now it is also entirely possible that having collected all that information, the Democratic Party is pursuing a careful and methodical investigation, and believes that publicity would damage their ability to collect physical evidence. In which case, we won't know until they are ready to present their findings to the public.

Now let's get back to that big, bright, RED ALERT: The fact that these questions are being sincerely raised at all, on any kind of wide scale, is a Very Bad Sign. For both parties and for all Americans. Because it signals that there is something seriously wrong with our electoral system.

Not because the system may permit such systematic fraud - that has not been established. But because ordinary people can ask the question with real doubt in their minds. Because we can actually imagine such a thing being possible. Do-able. That's bad. That's very bad.

Confidence in the mechanisms of election is at the very heart of a representative democracy. It is Caesar's wife. It is the absolute must. It must not only be clean, it must be seen as impossible to be dirty, at least in any large-scale way. And right now, there are at least three factors that are eroding the American peoples' trust in our election process:

First, the incursion of vast amounts of money from private parties and special interests into the electoral process;

Second, re-districting processes that are highly vulnerable to partisan manipulation;

Finally, voting mechanisms that are not utterly transparent and patently "cheat proof" to the greatest possible degree.

All three of these factors erode public trust and confidence in the electoral system. The fact that both parties, the minute the McCain/Feingold bill was signed into law, began building ways to circumvent that law, is not a promising sign. The fact that no-one has raised the issue of stabilizing and de-politicizing redistricting mechanisms is another. And the introduction of electronic voting machines whose software cannot be transparently, independently verified to be crack-proof may be the most ominous sign of all. We are losing our democracy.

Whether large-scale fraud is happening or not, the fact that it is seen as possible is the death of our faith in political self-determination. Right now, Auntie Pinko would be willing to vote for any candidate, of any party (!) who could make me believe that their number-one priority is to give us back our democracy by purging these infected sores on Liberty's face.

I'm sorry I couldn't be more helpful, Dave. But you touched a nerve that goes beyond party, to the very heart of my freedom. Thank you, though, for giving Auntie Pinko the chance to bring this out into the open.