Slashdot Mirror
Statistical Tools For Detecting Electoral Fraud
RockDoctor writes "A recent paper published in PNAS describes statistical techniques for clearly displaying the presence of two types of electoral fraud (PDF) — 'incremental fraud' (stuffing of ballot boxes containing genuine votes with ballots for the winning party) and 'extreme fraud' (reporting completely contrived numbers, typically 100% turnout for a vote-counting region, with 100% voting for the winning party). While the techniques would require skill with statistical software to apply in real time, the graphs produced in the paper provide tools for the interested non-statistician to monitor an election 'live.' Examples are discussed with both 'normal' elections, fraud by the techniques mentioned, and cases of genuine voter inhomogeneity. Other types of fraud, such as gerrymandering and inhibiting the registration of minority voters, are not considered."
We can't have that. Who do we call to get this outlawed?
Without tracking who voted for whom, it is impossible to detect any kind of voter fraud (besides more people voting than are eligible) with 100% certainty.
Vote fraudsters would simply rig the vote to some degree under the level of certainty that the statisticians use to watch for fraud.
Gerrymandering is not exactly fraud. Intentionally drawing lines to create voting districts in a way such that it favors one political party over another is perfectly legal (although obviously not desired). Gerrymandering can be used for good too such as creating voting districts consisting of mostly Blacks or other minorities so they can elect a (favored minority) representative and have a say in the political process.
... dare I ask how one pronounces "PNAS"?
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-72591227/
You importantly raised the issue of abandoning the rule of law, which has been happening here in the USA with alarming regularity (a purist would say Lincoln was the worst first example, though you could find more before him). I wish I knew the name of it but there was a wonderful 10 minute video that explained the difference between a republic (and its literal translation as the public thing, meaning the rule of law) and how democratic republics are at risk of becoming lawless mob ruled states, as you describe.
His buddies must have included the entire Minnesota Supreme Court, since it was their unanimous decision that rejected his opponent's appeal. But don't let facts stop you from your right-wing conspiracy theories.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
Gerrymandering is the creative drawing of district boundaries to ensure a desired outcome. It's not a good thing, but it's hardly fraud, since there's no disconnect between who got the votes and who got elected.
Intimidating voters is an evil thing — using extortion to influence an election. But once again, not fraud.
Not all evils are the same, which is why we have different laws to cover stealing from a bank with a forged check and stealing from a bank with a gun.
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, among other actions, which were in violation of the Constution, and illegal. Therefore, my statement is factually sound. I did not make a value judgment, just a statement of fact - many purists do indeed cite Lincoln as one of the first presidents to grossly violate the rule of law. A better question would have been, "Why?", which is what I've tried to answer here. Your attitude is really uncalled for, unconstructive, and ignorant.
You are aware, I hope, that The Suspension Clause allows for habeas corpus to be suspended "...when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
Good, inexpensive web hosting
It was a violation of "equal protection under the law" because different ballots were treated differently by different voting districts. Just so happened that disqualified ballots from liberal districts were treated a lot more leniently than disqualified ballots from conservative districts.
This is all well documented. The Minnesota Supreme Court refused to intervene because they were using a high malice standard.
That doesn't make what happened right, and I highly doubt that a fair recount would have resulted in the election of Franken.
The use of it to imprison Copperhead Democrats, who were publicly protesting the war, and not otherwise a threat, except to Lincoln politically, pretty fairly casts doubt, at least, on the legality of his use of it in that case. Habeas Corpus cannot seriously be expected to be legally suspended to violate first amendment rights. What do you think?
I see they've used the recent parliamentary ('11) and presidential ('12) Russian elections as one of the inputs, and they do indeed show some nice graphs there. Well, good to know that at least there is something good for science coming out of that mess.
Don't forget John Adam's Sedition Act.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
There's 4 million people likely to vote Democrat that don't have the Government issued ID card in Pennsylvania alone, a capacity of 100,000 ID cards a month.
It's October, so you go figure whether they can get an ID card in time to cope with this law change!
Republicans 1% are scum for undermining democracy like that. How are Koch brothers any better than Putin's backers?
I'm not saying that all of his actions were properly justified, just that his suspension of habeas corpus wasn't completely (or even mostly) unconstitutional.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Arguments abound for both views. At least one SCOTUS member disagreed with you. Given the obvious unethical nature, and the tenuous claim to legality, I'll stand by my assertion that purists believe Lincoln acted illegally. I doubt many people could convincingly argue that Bush II or Obama have not acted illegally. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/vance4.html
Damn I wish I could edit. Meant to emphasize that the language around suspension clearly indicates only in case of rebellion and public safety. I can't buy for a minute that free speech being exercised qualifies either of those legal standards, hence, it was illegal (the argument in the Vance essay notwithstanding, which I think is needlessly complex, but IANACL).
I'm not sure about videos, but the Federalist Papers point specifically explain how the US Constitution prevents a mob from taking control.
The basic problem, though, is that one man's group of motivated citizens voting for what they think is best for the republic is another man's unruly uneducated mob. If you truly believe that the citizens are incapable of electing not-terrible leaders (or, for that matter, weighing evidence fairly when seated on a jury), then what you're really advocating is some form of dictatorship.
I am officially gone from
Seriously. The whole point of the law is to make sure people are only voting where they live. In Wisconsin at least, IDs for voting are free. Yet, people cry "disenfranchisement", as if somehow anyone, even someone who has no job, can somehow survive without a state issued ID. Can someone please, without frothing at the mouth and namecalling, help me understand what the actual objections of "Wow, you should be able to prove you're voting where you live", is a problem? Especially when, see previous re: State issued ID cards being free?
Saying the voter % among minorities is up in Georgia is not the same as saying that Pennsylvania has implemented a voter ID law that requires a government issued voter ID that they don't have the capacity to issue.
Effectively a lot of voters will not be able to vote because they won't have that ID card, are not able to get it in time and NO SURPRISES, that demographic is largely Democrat, and the law was passed by Republicans.
I stand by my comment.
The Republicans 1% ARE scum for undermining democracy like that.
*The reason they fell was more due to external aggression than any internal problems. It is possible, for example, that had the Austro-Hungarians been victorious, that the world after WWI would have been better off. Impossible to prove, but fun to think about. I envision that world as being more steam-punk oriented, somehow.
Franken won by ~225 votes. Most districts only had 10 or 20 ballots that Coleman was disputing. Is your theory that the omniscient democrats launched a state-wide conspiracy to reject a dozen Coleman votes here, two dozen there, somehow knowing that that would tip the scales?
No, you are just parroting what you have heard from your chosen masters, who have been having a temper tantrum for the better part of four years.
Well the Republican house leader from Pennsylvania can help you out there:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o32tF-S6K60
Even the Republican House Leader admits the law was intended to let Mitt Romney win Pen State.
They made a list of specific forms of ID that are valid and ones that are not. That list gives a heavily weighted bias to Republicans. So 15 million people need a new government ID in Republican states, those people are mostly Democrat and unaligned voters. They'll have to get this Id from governments under GOP control that haven't invested in the capacity to issue all of those IDs until after the elections.
That's enough to probably win Pen State for Mitt Romney. They know it, that's what it was intended to do. Yet the claim is of 'buses' moving fake voters from state to state. When they've investigated that claim, it's been found to be completely bogus. Misregistrations being so far below statistical significance as to be one of the more ludicrous claim Fox has made.
I'm certainly not going to argue that there wasn't any abuse, only that in at least some of the cases he was justified. And, to be honest, I don't know what percentage of the cases were questionable.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
Is your theory that the omniscient democrats launched a state-wide conspiracy to reject a dozen Coleman votes here, two dozen there, somehow knowing that that would tip the scales?
I've heard a similar theory about casinos. That they try to get you drunk, say via free martinis, in order to get more money out of you. But who really believes that there's an omniscient casino industry out there which launched an industry-wide conspiracy to get you drunk in order to lower your inhibitions and judgment and thereby profit from it at the gaming table?
No you'd just be parroting what you heard from your chosen masters.
In the case above, all it takes for this so-called omniscience is a couple of good polls. That's all you need to see that the race was too close to call. And a state-wide "conspiracy" would be rather easy for a major party to implement.
And the fruits of the alleged conspiracy are that the Democrats would get a senate seat. We have the knowledge necessary to make the "conspiracy", the means to drop votes, and the motive for doing so.
Argument by conspiracy really only works, if the conspiracy is ridiculously hard to do and runs counter to the interests of the alleged members. When it's downhill all the way, one needs far better arguments than "It's a conspiracy theory, therefore you must be wrong."
If you truly believe that the citizens are incapable of electing not-terrible leaders (or, for that matter, weighing evidence fairly when seated on a jury), then what you're really advocating is some form of dictatorship.
No, you are not. People are definitely free to make an argument for dictatorships if they so choose, but fearing some of the drawbacks of democracy doesn't require you to advocate a dictatorship. Polybius argued that all of the "basic" forms of government were flawed (rule by one, rule by few, rule by many), and that a government that consists of multiple bodies using all of the basic forms of government would be superior to one of the most basic government. The idea was that all of these different institutions would have their own powers and keep the other institutions in check. He also saw as an example of this (consuls, the senate, popular assemblies).
If you fast forward to the enlightenment, the somewhat related idea of "separation of powers" was developed. The idea here was (again) to have multiple institutions (typically along the lines of executive, legislative, and judicial branches) that each have their own set of powers, where in theory some of those powers are designed to keep the other branches in check. The United States is a pretty good example there (not too surprising as the concepts are related and the people who developed the US constitution mostly had classical educations and modeled the constitution on the Roman Republic to an extent).
The thought behind both of these concepts is that because there are multiple institutions all battling for power, the system won't degrade into a bad, abusive system as quickly as one of the pure forms. Like all forms of government, there are downsides. A big one (that we see in the US today) is gridlock. It can be difficult to get anything done, and that's partially by design (its more difficult to abuse one's power if its more difficult to use it), but there can be pretty serious consequences to that. For example, the budget disaster going on in the US right now.
You're not making sense. Polls have nowhere near the precision required to predict the outcome of a senate race within a few hundred votes. Furthermore, you are positing that dozens of election officials all conspired to commit a fraud against the American people, which is a far cry from a few casino execs getting their customers to spend more money.
On top of that, if the Democrats have the means to cheat close elections, why only that one? There are plenty of close elections that they've lost.
You believe in this big evil liberal conspiracy because, at the time, you were upset and latched on to the first alternate theory presented, and now you're too invested in it to see reason.
You must be new to politics. Fixing non-existent problems they can't prove exist is a dead give away. duh!
The complex rules and regulations on voting coming from the proponents of Voter IDs are where the true motives become clear-- the devil is in the details. Never trust a politician's summarization. Do you trust marketing claims? Probably, they hire marketing firms to sell you both.
How about this: You have a great popular video game; everybody wants it, but it includes a Sony-like DRM rootkit backdoor into your computer. Some people will install the game and weaken their systems while others will find out about the details and oppose it.
The sole purpose as their moves show is to PREVENT LEGIT VOTERS. It won't outlaw minorities voting, that would be illegal and unpopular-- but it can make sure it is extra difficult and harass demographics that typically vote against them. This is easy for the GOP to do as there are so many minority groups who are against them they can single them out easily. The DFL would as well except they lack such easy to spot targets that do not overlap into their supporters.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
Um, just exactly how much statistical analysis is necessary to declare this fraud?
So basically, if it's like a typical Florida election but Democrats win, it's fraud?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
The MAJORITY of judges on the panel were republican. The Surpreme Court knew judges were deciding things in the process ALREADY according to law. There was no sign the republican judges were doing anything wrong and franken won. Coleman lost and played dirty and nasty the whole time. I was involved in the recount process. It was fair, and video taped and highly documented. They pulled every BS dispute to drag things out until a judge got on their case about being so ridiculous and even then they were dicks about it. They'd complain about ballots where somebody WROTE IN Franken! It was clear that they decided if they lost (or that they would lose) they would drag things out for the longest amount of time possible.
The short form answer is "The Civil War", Lincoln can be considered justified by that view if you accept the argument that "The Constitution is not a suicide pact.", or his actions can be seen as going beyond what was actually necessary to prosecute the war. I've read good arguments either way.
The long answer won't fit here, and I'm not sure it exists. I've taught Root Causes of the Civil War in military OCS classes. I tend to favor an argument that Lincolns actions had more necessity behind them than is generally recognized, but I'd have to base this claim on an analogy with US use of nuclear weapons at the end of WW2, an area subject to similar debate. Reading what some highly placed persons in the Confederate government and the Imperial Japanese government of their respective times wrote makes me of the opinion that both situations were at least partially justified from a purely mathematical analysis of the stated goals, intentions and claims of these government officials, and if anything, Lincoln pushed it less far that Truman. I could also make the same point by comparing non-governmental writers who held positions we might call political pundits, journalists, and such in the two eras. No analogy is perfect, one derived like this is doubly suspect, and a detailed study of just how a single Confederate cabinet post in 1862 matches to Hirohito's closest equivalent advisor in 1942, for example, would probably be a year's research.
I doubt Lincoln's example is that relevant to the current actions of the US. The issue of a declared war with mostly clearly defined goals vrs. a situation where no one seems to have clear victory conditions in mind is one reason not to rely too much on any claim that the US government today is following Lincoln's example.
Who is John Cabal?
Exit polling is highly effective as it was being done for decades and still is in many places to detect problems; some even call elections from it and just use the paper as a kind of verification process.
But in the USA, exit polling was smeared so bad and the public so ignorant it was outlawed in no time without much resistance. There is no reason they made such a huge and unjustified move other than current or future corruption plans. I think large enough fraud schemes were at risk of exposure and that is why it was killed.
Any new system that WORKED would threaten corruption and naturally the corrupt would strongly oppose it. Just like real news that keeps citizens properly informed gets whistle blower heroes persecuted and wikileaks...
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
With electronic voting, anyone who actually thinks they are voting is fooling themselves. Its all a scam. The money people control who gets elected. They make a big deal out of it as a subterfuge for what is really going on. The guy who gets "elected" is the guy they wanted in office anyhow. Rep and Dem is two sides OF THE SAME COIN. They take turns being the bad guy like some good cop/bad cop routine. It gives the appearance to the public they are actually doing something. We haven't had a real election in a very long time. Its all a bad joke and the joke is on us. How do you think MASSIVE scale corruption continues in DC? luck? Sorry, welcome to reality 101. I wish it wasn't I really do, but unfortunately it is. Maybe someday we will actually be able to vote and have it matter. But only when money baggers are not allowed to corrupt them all.
I'm old, not dead. Well that's my 2 cents worth, your mileage may vary. I say what I think, not what you want to hear.
So fraudsters will apply the same algorithm to make their fraud plausible. Yeah, very useful, indeed.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Disclaimer: I haven't read TFA - my PDF-reader locks up on this document for some reason.
There is one kind of fraud that can never be detected by any means, and that it to alter each vote as they are placed, i.e. identical in every way to the voter having cast his vote elsewhere. Electronic voting machines are perfect for this. A similar technique would be to point a gun at some of the voters head and make them vote a certain way.
"Suffing the ballot boxes" - reminds me of that Blackadder episode with the "rotten borough" with just one voter: Baldrick of course. When he has cast his vote the result is announced: A completely new candidate wins with over 1.000 write-in votes, and one invalid vote (Baldricks obviously) is disregarded. That was clearly a perfectly fine election with no statistical anormalies.
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --
Does it even have to be a coDoes it even have to be a conspiracy? Can't the party members in the individual districts have tried to dispute the votes on their own initiative, without being sure it'd make a difference?nspiracy?
John Adam? Never heard of him.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
For whatever the "intended purpose", attempts at gerrymandering can backfire. The more extreme the attempted gerrymander, the more disastrous the outcome can be (at least, in a fair election). The result can even be Tullymandering.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
cities such as Philadelphia that has more voters than the US Census says it has total residents.
4. More and more voting stations are located in suburban areas or on the edge of town to make sure only the well-off can easily get there and to cut down on the riff-raff (the poor, the elderly, the minorites working long slave-wage hours, etc.).
Coda: In Kansas, they decided in an election year - pure coincidence, I'm sure - to finally revamp the computer system for drivers licenses (and state IDs which aren't free) after years and years of delay. My first license renewal was 'lost in the mail' and only recently just received the replacement. I fully expect there will be tens of thousands - maybe even me - that will turned away from the polls because some minor thing is wrong with the new license or ID. The main thing being wrong will be skin color or party affiliation. And as usual in US politics, jack shit will be done about it.
Polls have nowhere near the precision required to predict the outcome of a senate race within a few hundred votes.
And they don't need to. If the polls are too close to call, then that's an indication that fraud can make the difference.
Furthermore, you are positing that dozens of election officials all conspired to commit a fraud against the American people, which is a far cry from a few casino execs getting their customers to spend more money.
That depends on whether one gets caught or not. This particular fraud seems pretty safe to commit.
On top of that, if the Democrats have the means to cheat close elections, why only that one? There are plenty of close elections that they've lost.
That election is not unique in having accusations of fraud. My view is that there are probably low levels of fraud in most elections. In addition, there looks to me to be evidence that both major parties are engaging in recent elections in larger frauds and corruption.
For example, there has been some suspicious small donor behavior among a few Democrat presidential candidates, Howard Dean and Barack Obama, that has resulted in considerable sums of money being raised for the candidates from untraceable sources (an avenue easily gamed by a rich source wanting to donate large, untraceable sums to a presidential candidate).
Similarly, Romney has consistently won a larger fraction of votes at the end of polling for a large number (perhaps even a majority) of Republican primaries and caucuses than at the beginning (most such elections report preliminary vote totals during the vote tally process). It could be that Romney supporters show up late while usually exactly one other candidates supporters (which has been Paul, Gingrich, or Santorum, depending on state and sometimes local election) shows up early.
Or it could be electoral fraud at the vote tabulation machine level where about 5-10% of votes for one other candidate are tabulated as votes for Romney.
When one sees rather large, suspicious issues crop up without any investigation or repercussion, one wonders what else is going on below the radar. The small fraud alleged earlier in this thread is near trivial compared to what could be going on and isn't investigated.
Anarcho-capitalism very quickly turns into mini-dictatorships of people with the most cash or most effective military force. For example, in colonial Virginia, plantation owners ran their plantations not significantly different from a feudal manor, acting as absolute ruler over slaves and indentured servants under their control and behaving very much like the nobility of Europe. Or to pick something more modern, in northern Mexico, with the government basically ineffective, the leaders of the drug cartels rule over their territory and personnel with an iron fist.
Minarchism means you have a government, and some body has to be in charge of managing the courts and the police and the army (otherwise, you just have anarchy, with all the drawbacks described in the previous paragraph). You have to pick that body somehow: If you hold an election, it's subject to all the democratic whims you're worried about. And if you don't include some variety of the governed consenting with the actions of the government, then you have an unaccountable person or group of people that will effectively operate as a dictatorship. (This one has to be theoretical, as there's no instance of anyone anywhere being able to create and keep a minarchist government for any significant length of time.)
"Libertarian socialism" is an oxymoron, since the fundamental belief of libertarianism is that the government should not force you to do things with your property that you don't want to do, while the fundamental belief of socialism is that the government should force the rich to use their property to support the poor.
Constitutional monarchy depends on whether the monarch has any real power. If the monarch has no real power (e.g. UK and Denmark), then it's a democracy really, and the views of the (theoretically more enlightened) monarch has no effect on policy, and thus all the problems you describe with democracy kick in. If the monarch has a real say in the functioning of government, then typically the monarch acts as an absolute ruler and any other political body serves to advise and carry out the wishes of the monarch.
I am officially gone from
For example, there is very strong evidence that Scott Brown reached the US Senate as a result of election fraud. Details are in http://electiondefensealliance.org/files/BelieveIt_OrNot_100904.pdf That analysis compared the results in machine count jurisdictions and hand count jurisdictions. The usual disparity between hand count and machine count results (based on prior elections) runs around 0.25%. Coakley led in hand count jurisdictions by 2% and Brown in machine count jurisdictions by 5%. That is a 7% disparity. It also turns out that the company operating the machine counts was Republican-connected, and that the ballots were neither saved nor sampled to validate the accuracy of the machine counts. There are numerous ways to tamper with a machine count of paper ballots, especially in a two-person special election.
The method published in the subject paper could not pick up this kind of election fraud.
Constitutional monarchy can look like a strong executive - NOT legislative - office carrying out the function of seeing the law as written implemented correctly, and acting in the interest of national security in case of invasion. I am somewhat strongly sympathetic to seeing it tried out again. Call me crazy...but one of the Indian guys I worked with pointed out that under the maharaja, only one guy needed to be bribed.
For instance, we can prepare a law according to which, if the result of a vote are cheated by more than 10% according to fraud parameter fi from the paper, then this vote is canceled.
And this even could have precise granularity, like the vote is canceled only in the regions where this cheating is detected.
And we also can add, we ban the citizens that handled the vote bureau, not from voting again, but from being bureau delegates for 10 years.
Of course it is useful.
Speaking of which, I'm now waiting for an application worksheet to test my own election here, for which I have all the regional data in a newspaper I kept.
Herve S.
Why waste all this time on silly things like statistics and facts? According to our own little "darling" Kris Kobach here in Kansas, voter fraud is horribly rampant everywhere, billions of votes are fraudulent, and anyone disagreeing with him is wrong.
It is an oxymoron, it's an impossible situation. You can come up with all sorts of mental contortions but you can't change the fact. Either the society is libertarian (liberal in the classical sense) or it is not.
A libertarian society cannot have 'communal property', because this demands central planning of some type and this goes directly against the principle of self-determination, it denies the free market. Even if you set it up, within months it will destabilise, people will not agree on things like who and how much is supposed to 'sacrifice' to maintain such a weird concept as 'communal property' within actual free market.
You see, even without the free market but with central planning and with lack of actual due process, lack of real laws, the way things are running today, the system has so called 'common property' but it doesn't actually belong to anybody and thus it's not just neglected, it's abused for the benefit of the special interests, that can buy the politicians who control access to it. The society ends up backing that deal.
So before BP drills in the deep waters, the government sets liability caps of 75 Million USD, which are ridiculously low, given the possible liability lawsuits that can arise from a spill or any other type of disaster. How is it possible to have 'common property' when in fact nobody is the owner of it and nobody actually cares about what happens to it and thus politicians simply sell access to it to the highest bidders, who then use it for whatever and the costs of misuse are dropped upon the tax payers?
You think a libertarian society would not know what this concept you speak of would mean for them? It would mean the beginning of the end of the free market in that system, which is actually the way USA free market ended.
MY OTHER COMMENTS
The opinion method seems to be much more robust against statistical attack. What's the opinion method? It's clearly demonstrated in the US Democratic National Convention and the Republican National Convention.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v96Y8r2UPic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJ_ylYNbAlY
P.S. Detecting fraud is easy enough. Making a difference is much more difficult.
Constitutional monarchy can look like a strong executive - NOT legislative - office carrying out the function of seeing the law as written implemented correctly, and acting in the interest of national security in case of invasion.
If the monarch has the guns, the monarch is ultimately the one who decides what power the legislative body has and can ignore the laws whenever he pleases. If the legislative body has the guns, then they decide what power the monarch has, if any.
I am officially gone from
When one sees rather large, suspicious issues crop up without any investigation or repercussion, one wonders what else is going on below the radar. The small fraud alleged earlier in this thread is near trivial compared to what could be* going on and isn't investigated.
*But isn't.
A lack of evidence and prosecutions does not necessarily indicate a lack of investigations. They can also indicate innocence.
There have been investigations, even one's launched and investigated by Republicans, yet they continue to find almost no evidence to indicate voter fraud.
Don't you Remember? Back in 2007 GW Bush even fired a bunch (between 7 and 9) of his own federal prosecutors because:
1) They couldn't find the evidence of Democratic Voter-Fraud that he was sure was there.
2) The only people they COULD find to prosecute for voter-fraud were Republicans.**
**Scroll Down to: Administration rationale unclear
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy
And here is "An Analysis of Voter Fraud in The United States" from 2006 that I just happened to find while looking for info on the firings.
http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/Analysis.pdf
Or, are you saying that the Democrats are successfully conspiring to conduct a massive cover-up of another massive conspiracy to commit fraud, and has been going on for decades? And that in all that time, no one involved in these conspiracies has ever had a change of heart, or a change of party, or let slip the secret to anybody. And that the Democrats are so competent and crafty that they've been able to successfully hide all evidence from the world, and that the Republicans are too incompetent and / or stupid to put it together and gather evidence? You know, it's just too bad there are no Republicans who know how to do the kind of police, detective and intelligence work and "aggressive" military / CIA type interrogations that would be able to uncover this type of conspiracy.
If that's what you truly think, if the Democrats are so competent and so intelligent, and the Republican are so incompetent and so stupid. Maybe you should let the Democrats work their magic competence on the government, and get those incompetent Republicans out of the way.
THINK! It's patriotic