Why Isn't The Right Screaming "Fraud" Over Iowa Caucuses?

[NNN0LHI]

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201201050013

January 05, 2012 2:16 pm ET by Matt Gertz

Let me begin by being perfectly clear: I have absolutely no reason to think any election fraud occurred in the GOP's Iowa caucuses on Tuesday. But if Democrats had been in any way involved, you can bet that Republicans would be screaming to the heavens about a possibly stolen election.

Before, during, and after virtually every competitive election, the right-wing media wail about how Democrats are on the verge of stealing elections through fraud. This has been going on for years, despite significant evidence that actual voter fraud is extremely rare. Conservatives have used this voter fraud myth to push for a variety of draconian restrictions on voting, which have the effect of disenfranchising traditionally Democratic voters such as young people, the poor, and minorities.

When Democrat-backed JoAnne Kloppenburg emerged from Wisconsin's Supreme Court election with a small lead last year, conservatives were quick to claim the election was within the "margin of fraud" and cite baseless allegations. The same thing happened when close elections favored Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) in 2008 and Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire (D). And then there's their endless allegations that Democrats or ACORN were about to steal an election.

Which brings us to Tuesday, when Mitt Romney won the Iowa caucus by a mere eight votes out of 60,022 cast, a margin so slim that even a handful of fraudulent votes could have tipped the balance. There will be no recount. And the Iowa GOP requires no photo ID from would-be caucusers; indeed, you could participate with no documentation if you and a registered voter from the precinct would both sign an oath swearing you are qualified.

[frazzled]

1. If there were really a "winner" in a proportional caucus situation, people might care

Republican primaries and caucuses used to be winner take all, until this year. Now it's proportional (until after March 1). So nobody (including the candidates) cares whether it was 20 votes this way or 8 votes that, or even 100. Both top candidates got 7 delegates to count toward their march to the nomination.

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. Who am I to question the nominee that Gawd has given us? n/t

[baldguy]

3. As always - IOKIYAR

They'll whine endlessly about the imaginary fraud in the fair & accurate vote tallies of actual elections which they lose, but will ignore the actual fraud in their own imaginary elections in the Iowa caucuses.

[Quantess]

8. what does the acronym stand for?

forgive my silly question.

[baldguy]

9. It's OK If You're A Republican

[Quantess]

10. Thanks. I had seen it before but never was able to figure it out. (n/t)

[liberal N proud]

4. They don't want to risk exposure to a much larger fraud.

Or be open to scrutiny in a planned future event.

[Scuba]

5. Why? Have they expressed interest in voter fraud elsewhere?

Like Wisconsin, perhaps?

[deacon]

6. Because they got what they needed even if it's something they don't really want. n/t

[customerserviceguy]

7. I did happen to tune in to Rush Limpballs the day after the caucuses

and he was making noises about "finding" extra votes for Romney in the dead of the night. Repukes are indeed aware that their process is not foolproof. But they regard the outcome as essentially a tie, and a few dozen votes one way or another wouldn't change that.

Romney's people consider it a win, and everybody else considers it a Romney loss, to fight to the draw with a guy who was polling single digits just two weeks earlier. They're also OK with the fact that four more years of campaigning for president didn't get Romney anything that he didn't get back in 2008.

[Survivoreesta]

11. No one here cares about this shit!>

Seriously!