The most massive and widespread fraud in Oregon elections is perpetrated repeatedly by the candidates, especially the ones who get elected. The second most is by their communications people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxyI9IT_hqY

Kate was all excited at a recent City Club presentation announcing her plan for on-line voter registration due by 2012. Can't wait to see who will register the most times with the most creative identity scam.

The best balloting technique among all 50 States -- universal paper ballots, marked by hand -- and the accomplished ideal in its design, is NOT going to be clearly seen in perfection where you listen to the radio views of Mark 'n' Dave ... and the statistically-unnoteworthy "caller after caller" small faction, among their irrepresentationally-disaffected and car-confined audience -- i.e., "very rare" 'fraud' among rarer veritable reports, as Secretary Kate Brown said.

That is to say if massmedia's illusion had any substance in reality, then scientific-polling and -survey firms would not exist. Then too, neither would reality, in fact: worse in every other State.

Re: "I want to ensure all Oregonians that...."

It would be more believable were the SoS to "assure" all Oregonians rather than "ensure" us.

I, for one, look forward to evidence that this promise is fulfilled:
"Any attempt to violate election laws will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law."

GM, if you're going to pick nits with her Ladyship's word choices, don't omit "fullest" -- a uniquer choice than most.

A good example for discussion is the 1960 national election when so many dead people were said to have voted in Chicago.

A good example for discussion is the 1960 national election when so many dead people were said to have voted in Chicago.

"Were said" = "something whined about for years by bitter Nixon supporters."

Allan L.,
GM isn't omiting or picking nits with her word choices, just telling what Kate said ... and the word "uniquer" does not exist, except in your world

Allen L. (and Dave Richards), interpreting what the SoS means should be more straightforward. For example, does she actually intend to prosecute "[a]ny attempt to violate election laws?" If so, what does she mean by "attempt?" How will she know she has discerned any and every attempt? And how are voters to know? If voters are to measure her proficiency in her duties as SoS, shouldn't we know how good she is at it? Otherwise, all we have to go on is idle, rather illiterate bravado.

Maybe I misunderstood but my impression of the investigation is that it was kind of an add on after the man had already been prosecuted for identity theft, social security fraud and some other things. That as well as the fact he was posing as a former Ranger and Vietnam vet, giving detailed TV interviews complete with made up war stories. Realistically I don't see any other way they could have known to look at him for voter fraud.

I guess my other question is who the votes were for? And were they taken away? I didn't see that addressed but can only guess if there was information votes were cast for the wrong party that information would have been front and center in the Oregonian article.