|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 23 2012 @ 02:04 PM EDT |
There are obviously limits to how effective voting fraud can be. In a typical
U.S. senatorial election, you'd be doing well to steal 3-4 seats. House seats
are more likely to be up for grabs: in particular, there are redistricting
projects every 10 years; the party that DOESN'T control the redistricting has
better-than-usual chances of picking up a few new seats--and voting fraud may
occasionally be a viable way of enhancing those odds.
Large-scale vote fraud simply isn't practical, because it's too noticeable. It's
much better to focus on the close districts.
If one party is consistently better at voting fraud, you will notice that the
very close elections are consistently won--if both parties are evenly
matched--either at committing fraud or being honest--then over time, the close
elections will fall 50-50.
Check the close elections for the last 50 years. I think you'd find the numbers
very interesting.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|