You've probably heard the accusation that dead people are listed as participating in certain elections, and that most of these so-called "graveyard voters" vote for Democrats. Rush Limbaugh, for example, has jokingly said that as long as people keep on voting Democratic after they die, liberals will win elections somewhere. I must admit I have contributed a bit to this impression. How else do we explain New York's willingness to elect a modern-day carpetbagger as its senator, when New Yorkers are known to look down their noses at people from the South, especially from Arkansas? And I suspect that Chief Sitting Bull is still registered as a Democratic voter in South Dakota, because while those conservative folks vote Republican in every presidential election, they keep on electing liberals like George McGovern, James Abourezk, and Tom Daschle to represent them in the Senate.
Now it appears that the dead do affect the ballot box, though not in the way we expected. If the 50+ million Americans aborted since 1973 could vote, who would they vote for? On June 28, 2004, The Wall Street Journal published the results of a survey involving the voting patterns of those who have had abortions. To nobody's surprise, they found that liberals have more abortions than conservatives. Then, running on the assumption that children are more likely than not to vote the same way as their parents, they looked at how this would have affected elections, if the unborn had lived and voted. The result: more than 18 million potential voters have been lost already, with 36% of those lost likely to have become Democrats, 30% of them independents, and 28% of them Republicans. In 2000, for example, if the unborn had participated, in the same percentages as the living, that presidential election would not have been too close to call for weeks; Al Gore would have won with a margin comparable to Jimmy Carter's in 1976. In Florida, the state that decided the election, Gore would have won by 45,366 votes, instead of losing by 537 votes.
Why did John Kerry lose in 2004? Well, for a start, a lot of Democratic voters weren't at the polls.
This confirms something I have suspected for a long time. As far back as the 1980s, I have felt that time was not on the side of the "pro-choice" crowd, because those who favor abortion are killing their babies, while those who are "pro-life" are keeping theirs. To keep this from causing demographic changes, the abortionists would have to win thousands of converts from pro-life families every year, and I don't see that happening; as far as I can tell, most people made up their minds on the subject years ago. Thus, it is only a matter of time before those who are pro-choice abort themselves out of existence, and now it looks like they have killed enough of their own to make themselves a permanent minority on the political scene.
Finally, do you ever get the feeling that abortion is a modern-day version of the ancient practice of child sacrifice? Those who are "pro-choice" seem to treat it as a sacrament, and despite their name, they get personally offended when a woman chooses to have her baby. Recently, somebody joked that a Democrat is the kind of person who would walk into a maternity ward and shake his fist in anger at those who escaped the wrath of "choice." Well, let the record show that sacrificing children didn't do any good for the Aztecs, Carthaginians, or anyone else who did it. In fact, it's probably the main reason why those civilizations aren't around anymore. Now that we're doing something similar with our unborn, the chickens may be coming home to roost.
Child sacrifice = abortion = suicide bombings = lost future. Whatever you call it, the result is the same.
The original article is no longer accessible on the WSJ website, so here is a link to a 2005 article on the same subject. Think about it, liberal readers; I know many of you voted for Al Gore in 2000. Was being able to choose whether to have children worth it, if it means that Gore won't be president?