by Hondo @ This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here » Blog Archive » So . . . There
Well, then, explain the fact that former state Rep. Hudson Hallum, a Democrat from eastern Arkansas, and three others are awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty to federal charges of conspiracy to commit election fraud. Hes now facing up to 5 years in Federal prison and a $250,000 fine. Five others were also charged and apparently are still awaiting trial.
The scheme included buying votes outright, with cash or in-kind bribes; discussions of procuring discounted liquor with which to bribe prospective voters (not executed); illegally providing absentee ballots directly to voters; helping people to fill out absentee ballots; and outright destruction of absentee ballots cast for Hallums opponent, Kim Felker. All of this is, obviously, illegal as hell.
Did Hallums and his co-conspirators crimes change the outcome? I think its safe to say, Damn right they did.
Hallum had a majority of 394 votes to 67 in absentee votes alone in the election in question; no one knows how many votes he bought outright. Hallum won the election by 8 votes.
This is one example of why its not necessarily a good idea to bend over backwards to make voting too easy and convenient. In particular, allowing unrestricted voting-by-mail simply because its easy and convenient just might not be a good idea at all.
Why? Because everything you do to make voting more convenient or easier almost always presents an additional opportunity for vote fraud. And when theres an opportunity for fraud, sooner or later someone will attempt it.
Well, then, explain the fact that former state Rep. Hudson Hallum, a Democrat from eastern Arkansas, and three others are awaiting sentencing after pleading guilty to federal charges of conspiracy to commit election fraud. Hes now facing up to 5 years in Federal prison and a $250,000 fine. Five others were also charged and apparently are still awaiting trial.
The scheme included buying votes outright, with cash or in-kind bribes; discussions of procuring discounted liquor with which to bribe prospective voters (not executed); illegally providing absentee ballots directly to voters; helping people to fill out absentee ballots; and outright destruction of absentee ballots cast for Hallums opponent, Kim Felker. All of this is, obviously, illegal as hell.
Did Hallums and his co-conspirators crimes change the outcome? I think its safe to say, Damn right they did.
Hallum had a majority of 394 votes to 67 in absentee votes alone in the election in question; no one knows how many votes he bought outright. Hallum won the election by 8 votes.
This is one example of why its not necessarily a good idea to bend over backwards to make voting too easy and convenient. In particular, allowing unrestricted voting-by-mail simply because its easy and convenient just might not be a good idea at all.
Why? Because everything you do to make voting more convenient or easier almost always presents an additional opportunity for vote fraud. And when theres an opportunity for fraud, sooner or later someone will attempt it.
