Absentee Voter Ballot Abuse?

By Jim Arnold

Though often neglected and sometimes abused, the right to vote is one of the penultimate rights and responsibilities afforded in a free society.   An ironic example of that importance is the 2000 Florida recount where the befuddled man with thick glasses staring at the hanging chad on the punched voting card was tasked with discerning the intent of the voter.  This humorous scene could be jokingly referred to as “No Chad Left Behind”, but it represented an honest effort to ensure that all votes were correctly counted, and no voters were disenfranchised.

The Absentee Voter Ballot process serves a critical role in enabling people to vote who might not otherwise be able.  Unfortunately the AVB process as practiced in Delaware County provides opportunities for fraud, voter abuse, and disenfranchised voters.   Consider the 2003 election where we saw the mother of Muncie Councilman Monte Murphy accused of “trolling for Democratic votes” in Precinct 18 and other precincts on Muncie’s southeast side.  Four years later in 2007 those charges were dropped just in time for the mayoral election.  Is the opportune timing of the dismissal of serious accusations just prior to the election Collusion, Conflict of Interest, or Coincidence?      

An analysis of the Precinct 18 Summary Report prepared after the 2007 election suggests that the preponderance of Absentee Voter Ballots may have impacted straight party voting.  In Precinct 18, there were more absentee ballots than machine ballots (189 / 181); there were 266 straight party Democratic votes versus only 4 straight party Republican votes; and native son Micah Maxwell garnered only 6.86% of the vote in a Precinct a couple stone throws away from his childhood home due to straight party voting.  What a straight ticket tragedy!

Contrast Precinct 18 with Precinct 26 where Republican Mark Conatser defeated Democrat Brian Cole and another anomaly begs attention.  Precinct 18 voted 85.56% for Jim Mansfield versus 14.44% for Sharon McShurley.  Conversely Precinct 26 voted 85.42% for Sharon McShurley versus 14.58 % for Jim Mansfield.   In other words the Precinct 18 and 26 Mansfield versus McShurley mayoral voting ratios were “mirror images” or ‘near opposites” of one another.  In spite of this “mirror image” link there is a huge disparity in the ratio of straight party voters between these two precincts.  In Precinct 18 there were 266 straight party Democrat votes out of 370 total votes cast which equates to 71.89% of the total votes in that Precinct, but in Precinct 26 there were only 24 straight party Republican votes out of 192 total votes cast which equates to a mere 12.5% of the total votes.  If you consider that these precincts were “mirror Images” of each other it is hard to justify that the magnitude of the ratio of straight party Democrat votes in Precinct 18 was almost SIX times the magnitude of the ratio of straight party Republican votes in Precinct 26.   

Another interesting anomaly is the ratio of straight party votes for the majority party versus straight party votes for the minority party in the parallel precincts.  In Precinct 18 there were 266 straight party Democratic votes versus 4 straight party Republican votes (266/4 = 66.5)   In Precinct 26 there were 24 straight party Republican votes versus 10 straight party democratic votes (24/10 = 2.4).  Divide 66.5 by 2.4 and you see that the ,magnitude of majority party to minority party ratio in Precinct 18  is almost  28 times as large as the corresponding ratio in precinct 26.  Now that mathematical improbability is simply mind boggling! 

The 2000 recount debacle taught us that the public is slow to accept the results of an election that is clouded in debate.  There are still naysayers who contest the 2000 outcome in spite of counts, recounts, validations, and more recounts.  How long after 2007 will people protest possible AVB fraud from this election?  How many of the 73% of registered voters who failed to cast a vote in this election failed to do so because they felt their vote wouldn’t affect the outcome due to perceived voter fraud.  We cannot allow abuse or even the perception of abuse to pervert our voting process, or we will suffer from growing apathy at the poles and frustration and anger after the election.  If we fail to vote due to fraud, we forfeit our hard fought freedoms.

Our election officials should start the effort today to reform the AVB process before another election is tainted by fears of AVB abuse.  No political party should be involved in the AVB process except to assist people requesting AVB ballots by mail.  All party involvement should cease at that point to eliminate the possibility of AVB voters being influenced in their voting decisions by the party that “assists” them in the AVB process.

Jim Arnold

Muncie, Indiana.

Technorati Tags: Local Absentee Voter Ballot Abuse? Delaware County Muncie Opinion Politics

• ‹ previous
• 3265 of 3738
• next ›