Russia, Kazakhstan, Egypt, Gambia, Liberia… Neutral observers have charged that recent elections in these countries have been skewed by voter fraud. Are any of them paying attention to what is going on in the United States this election season?

I’m not so ignorant of our history to suggest that our national elections have been models of legality and propriety. I know about New York’s Tammany Hall, ward politics in Chicago, and Lyndon Johnson’s “87-vote landslide.” But one would hope that lessons from history and the transparency provided by the internet would make us more honest than we used to be.

In the 2010 election, the onus was mostly on ACORN, a national community organizing group that was also involved in voter registration. That is a story in itself, but to summarize, a media-inflamed case was made involving “allegations of phony names on voter registration applications.” ACORN officials themselves alerted officials to the activities, and the individuals perpetrating the illegalities were terminated. Subsequently, the organization went bankrupt. So much for that!

But what is going on this year makes ACORN’s wrongdoings look like very small potatoes—acorns?—indeed.

This time around it is the GOP in the spotlight in what is actually a continuation of questionable and illegal activities frequently linked with a person described as “The notorious Nathan Sproul.” It’s been reported regarding “Sproul many times over the years, as the GOP operative, and former chair of the Arizona GOP and the state’s Christian Coalition, pops up again and again in each Presidential Election year. He is hired over and over by the Republican Party, despite years of fraud allegations in multiple states against his organizations, which are said to have routinely changed or entirely destroyed Democratic voter registrations.”

What is notable about Sproul is that he has managed to continue to inveigle his way onto the payrolls of Republican organizations in a number of battleground states using a variety of names and methods.

“He operates as Sproul & Associates as well as Lincoln Strategy Group, among other names, including now, apparently, Strategic Allied Consulting.

“And this year, after being hired by the Bush/Cheney campaign in ’04 and the McCain/Palin campaign in ’08, Sproul was ‘quietly’ hired by the Romney campaign as a political consultant late last year, according to a June report from Lee Fang at the non-partisan Republic Report.”

Political operatives employ a number of “dirty tricks” such as voter registration drives in which party affiliations are switched or misrepresented, and forms of new registrants are destroyed if they list the “wrong” party. Add this to the efforts of states to require stringent voter ID standards, which mostly impact the poor, elderly, or minority citizens, and you’re looking at a significant impact on the outcome of the election.

In the face of this widespread impropriety, what can any prospective or newly-registered voter do? It’s going to take some resolve! If you have already registered, or think you have, contact your county clerk’s office to verify your eligibility and the accuracy of your information. If you are having any difficulties registering, contact your local party organization and enlist their help in getting onto the rolls. Being eligible to vote shouldn’t be so difficult, but if it is, it is also worth fighting for!

Romney sorely needed to appear competent in the foreign policy arena as America mourned the death of the respected ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Stevens. Instead, he reinforced the perception that he is ham handed in his response to an international crisis. His own party has criticized his response, saying that he appeared to turn this tragedy into political mileage for his election campaign. At least he cannot be accused of inconsistency in dealing with this aspect of the presidential job description!

Romney’s clumsy attack on the Obama administration’s reasoned response to the bombing of the Libyan consulate underscores the sense of desperation within the Romney campaign. The truth didn’t serve their purpose, so the facts were altered to fit. Romney said, “It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

Columnists Peter Baker and Ashley Parker of the New York Times made this observation: “Mr. Romney came under withering criticism for distorting the chain of events overseas and appearing to seek political advantage from an attack that claimed American lives. A statement he personally approved characterized an appeal for religious tolerance issued by the American Embassy in Cairo as sympathy for the attackers even though the violence did not occur until hours after the embassy statement. Mr. Romney on Wednesday said the embassy statement, which was disavowed by the administration, was “akin to apology, and I think was a severe miscalculation.”

An even more embarrassing response came from the GOP’s right wing—their very own Sarah Palin, who never disappoints. She managed to imbue her remarks with raunchy racist/sexual innuendo, as follows: “It’s about time our president stood up for America and condemned these Islamic extremists.… We already know that President Obama likes to ‘speak softly’ to our enemies. If he doesn’t have a ‘big stick’ to carry, maybe it’s time for him to grow one.”

The growing crisis in the Middle East may well involve the entire Western world—and soon. Whatever solutions become possible for Americans to provide, they will be found only through patient, reasoned responses, not rigid ideological reactions that play well only to an unenlightened segment of the American electorate.

What can you do—you are only one person? True, but you are only “six degrees of separation,” on average, from any other person on Earth. You become powerful when you share information with your friends and ask them to share it with their friends—it becomes a global revolution. As Stephen King suggests in The Long Walk, when these “society-supported sociopaths” come, step aside, and find the strength to run…

All the drama and flim flam aside, the two political conventions did offer some useful contrasts. One candidate’s family, for all its warm, family ties, love and loyalty, illustrated the privileges of wealth. The other candidate’s family represented how the traditional American values of hard work and social conscience could bring a person from the ranks of the underprivileged to the highest office in the land.

But among the oratory of politicians and celebrities alike, the standout presentation, in my opinion, was given by a young woman who, until a few months ago, was just another college student focused on finishing her education and getting out into the real world. This changed with the circumstance of a panel composed only of men pontificating on whether and under what circumstances women should have access to contraception and other components of women’s health provided by their employers.

The irony—and the utter unfairness of this testimony uttered by people unqualified to judge—brought Sandra Fluke into the public arena, only to be insulted by radio commentator Rush Limbaugh. In the resulting uproar, the issue was given the attention it deserved and the issues were clearly set forth by a representative of the class most affected—a woman of childbearing age.

No matter what moral position a person takes on contraception, I agree with Fluke that it is ultimately a matter to be decided by the woman, aided by her doctor. The ramifications of this issue are as personal and as weighty as any decision involving human life and its quality. This has been affirmed by the highest Court in the land, and there is no reason now to retreat from this position.

Sandra Fluke has earned the right to defend her views. Enduring the abuse of a bigoted person, didn’t qualify her, but it certainly sharpened the lines of debate. Fluke used reason, not emotion, to make her case, but the polemics clarified who occupied the high ground.

Fluke’s brief address to the Democratic National Convention defined the issue—the only issue. The voters of this nation will choose whether to strengthen the sacred power of an individual to choose in a matter that concerns her most—or whether to deny her that right.

Fluke concluded by setting forth the alternative: a country “that forces our generation to re-fight the battles they already won; a country where we mean it when we talk about personal freedom, or one where that freedom doesn’t apply to our bodies and our voices.

“We talk often about choice. Well, ladies and gentlemen, it’s time to choose.”

What can you do—you are only one person? True, but you are only “six degrees of separation,” on average, from any other person on Earth. You become powerful when you share information with your friends and ask them to share it with their friends—it becomes a global revolution. As Stephen King suggests in The Long Walk, when these “society-supported sociopaths” come, step aside, and find the strength to run…