Dead People Receive Ballots in NH Primary

[boomerang]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-uVhhIlPk0&feature=player_embedded

Just thought I'd post it for the sake of interest. I mean, what's the problem?

 

[DrPizza]

Okay, look in the obituaries in the paper, see who just died yesterday - do you really think they can update their stuff THAT fast? Do you think they printed their lists 45 minutes before the polling doors opened? The only person committing fraud is the person in the video claiming to be the other people. That is NOT evidence that others are doing this.

If you want evidence that people have voted in the name of dead people, then what you do is look at last year's list of people who voted, and double check to see if anyone dead voted. That would take too much effort for this sensationalism asshat.

Lacking such evidence, his entire charade is childish.

 

[dawp]

this time he may have bitten off more than he expected:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/11/james-okeefe-voter-fraud-video_n_1200208.html?ref=politics

and if any NH residents helped him, they could lose voting rights for life.

 

[CitizenKain]

O'Keefe admits that his partner was forced to flee a polling station after giving a volunteer a name that she recognized as belonging to a dead person.

Can't wait to see the simpletons line up behind this guy again

 

[sandorski]

Dude has always been a Douchebag.

 

[xBiffx]

Curious that most of you are more concerned with his actions than what they uncovered.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Curious that most of you are more concerned with his actions than what they uncovered.

What they discovered is that there isn't instant updating of dead people on the voting roles, and there's no evidence whatsoever that there's any malicious intent.

 

[sandorski]

Curious that most of you are more concerned with his actions than what they uncovered.

He has never "uncovered" anything.

 

[xBiffx]

What they discovered is that there isn't instant updating of dead people on the voting roles, and there's no evidence whatsoever that there's any malicious intent.

Perhaps. But wouldn't having to show ID solve the problem and wouldn't it have prevented his alleged illegal activity as well?

 

[woolfe9999]

Perhaps. But wouldn't having to show ID solve the problem and wouldn't it have prevented his alleged illegal activity as well?

Yeah, and it might even prevent 2 actual fraudulent votes from being cast, while effectively disenfranchising at least 20,000 voters, most of whom will vote dem. It's a win-win for the GOP.

 

[First]

Curious that most of you are more concerned with his actions than what they uncovered.

lmao.

 

[glenn1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-uVhhIlPk0&feature=player_embedded

Just thought I'd post it for the sake of interest. I mean, what's the problem?

It isn't a problem. The problem is with two warring camps thnat refuse to budge one iota from their positions that either: (a) even a single instance of vote fraud is too much, no matter how much our solution may inconvience or disenfranchise anyone; or (b) we can't allow a single voter to be disenfranchised due to lack of ID, even if that means we have to completely ignore an obvious problem solely due to its potential to cost our side votes.

 

[xBiffx]

It isn't a problem. The problem is with two warring camps thnat refuse to budge one iota from their positions that either: (a) even a single instance of vote fraud is too much, no matter how much our solution may inconvience or disenfranchise anyone; or (b) we can't allow a single voter to be disenfranchised due to lack of ID, even if that means we have to completely ignore an obvious problem solely due to its potential to cost our side votes.

This.

Then pretty much the question becomes would you rather have a vote free of fraud which guarantees the right person won, even if your guy lost. Or would your rather have a vote, ripe with fraud which guarantees nothing, even if your guy did win and may have not according to a fraud free vote.

Edit: I'm for the will of the people and you can't guarantee that unless the people are the ones doing the voting.

 

[Theb]

No stupid costumes this time?

 

[Ausm]

Perhaps. But wouldn't having to show ID solve the problem and wouldn't it have prevented his alleged illegal activity as well?

LMAO ....Thx for making my Friday

 

[Thump553]

The law in New Hampshire takes election fraud extremely seriously (witness the GOP stooges convicted for their actions in 2000). I predict one or more prosecutions will result from this publicity stunt.

 

[soundforbjt]

I hope this guy gets thrown in prison for a long time.

 

[hal2kilo]

I hope this guy gets thrown in prison for a long time.

This. And becomes a bitch.

 

[soundforbjt]

This. And becomes a bitch.

That's a given by looking at his picture.

 

[soundforbjt]

This. And becomes a bitch.

dp

 

[monovillage]

He wanted to show how easy it would be for someone to commit voter fraud and proved beyond any doubt that it would be easy. All it would take is a group to be motivated enough to do it.

 

[monovillage]

Okay, look in the obituaries in the paper, see who just died yesterday - do you really think they can update their stuff THAT fast? Do you think they printed their lists 45 minutes before the polling doors opened? The only person committing fraud is the person in the video claiming to be the other people. That is NOT evidence that others are doing this.

If you want evidence that people have voted in the name of dead people, then what you do is look at last year's list of people who voted, and double check to see if anyone dead voted. That would take too much effort for this sensationalism asshat.

Lacking such evidence, his entire charade is childish.

Why only for recent deaths, voter rolls are usually only updated for Presidential elections and my personal experience in California (I moved out of the State) it took 8 years for them to be updated.

 

[xBiffx]

Curious that most of you are more concerned with his actions than what they uncovered.

 

[DrPizza]

This.

Then pretty much the question becomes would you rather have a vote free of fraud which guarantees the right person won, even if your guy lost. Or would your rather have a vote, ripe with fraud which guarantees nothing, even if your guy did win and may have not according to a fraud free vote.

Edit: I'm for the will of the people and you can't guarantee that unless the people are the ones doing the voting.

How about option 3: after elections, check to see if there's a problem. If no such problem exists, the system isn't broken.

Further, do you think it's really that easy to influence an election? How many people are you going to get to go from city to city voting? 2? 3? 3 people spending their entire day driving from polling site to polling site - including standing in line, etc., let's say they manage to vote every 30 minutes. 3 people, times 2 votes per hour, times about 12 hours... 72 votes is generally meaningless in elections with millions of voters. Okay, but what about smaller elections - more local types of things - not many polling stations; each person in on it can only vote once, maybe twice, before people start noticing "hey, weren't you here an hour ago?"

Your only option is to increase the number of people in on the voting fraud. What happens when just one of those people has a change of heart and alerts authorities what's going on? Boom - everyone else gets nabbed for a felony.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

So what we are saying with this is conservatives can't show actual examples of fraudulent votes in elections so they break the law to commit fraud to score political points..... I gotcha.