Massive voter fraud discovered in North Carolina

[CZroe]

I think I know one of them personally. I worked with him for years and, therefore, know that he has lived in Georgia for years. He has family in New York and North Carolina. Though he usually travels to New York for legal reasons, he suddenly needed to travel to North Carolina "to go vote." He told me this and I immediately wondered if he also voted here. I know the party he voted for too but I don't want to stir things up.

 

[CZroe]

Registration officials instantly purge their roll of those that move or die. Good laugh there! The article says 37 thousand plus people drove across the state line all on the same day to perform a double vote without notice until this report came out? Can you think of anything more absurd? More likely it is just a mix up in reporting. And as I think about it considering the usual suspects, on purpose just for the drama.

You obviously don't know how easy it is, especially with early/absentee voting and without departments communicating the kind of information required. I lived in California for three years and only the Georgia Department or Revenue and the IRS knew (filed my taxes right, kept all my credit card statements and vehicle registration at the old address, never updated my license). I was never asked once about the out of state plate on my motorcycle despite commuting on it daily.

 

[Meghan54]

What I find disingenuous about all that "massive" voter fraud, which is 0.5% of registered voters in NC, is that NC doesn't purge their voter registrations for dead persons, and I'm sure if NC spent a couple of bucks to get the two databases to talk to each other, one avenue of "voter fraud" would be eliminated.

Then purge their voter roles of persons who've surrendered their driver's licenses to other states. NC participates in the nationwide driver's license info. database, so mesh that one with the voter's reg. database. Might cut down on the "massive" fraud.

But NC won't. It'd cost too much, lol!, and then wouldn't give them equally irrelevant something to rant about, like gay marriage.

 

[Texashiker]

I love watching the rubes like boommerang credulously swallow whatever news story shows up, so long as it tells them what they want to hear.

Ad hominem.

Are you going to address the facts or just insult the messenger?

But then again, this article blows a massive hole in your "no proof of voter fraud" posting history.

 

[fskimospy]

Ad hominem.

Are you going to address the facts or just insult the messenger?

But then again, this article blows a massive hole in your "no proof of voter fraud" posting history.

No, it doesn't.

BTW: nice job cutting out all the parts of my post that addressed why the OP was stupid and then claiming that I didn't address it.

 

[Fern]

What I find disingenuous about all that "massive" voter fraud, which is 0.5% of registered voters in NC, is that NC doesn't purge their voter registrations for dead persons, and I'm sure if NC spent a couple of bucks to get the two databases to talk to each other, one avenue of "voter fraud" would be eliminated.

Then purge their voter roles of persons who've surrendered their driver's licenses to other states. NC participates in the nationwide driver's license info. database, so mesh that one with the voter's reg. database. Might cut down on the "massive" fraud.

But NC won't. It'd cost too much, lol!, and then wouldn't give them equally irrelevant something to rant about, like gay marriage.

36k potential cases of voter fraud isn't significant?

In 2008 the vote difference between Obama and McCain was only 14k.

We've seen a number of close races for national elections in different states. Voter fraud, if actually occurring, of only a few thousand is indeed concerning.

Fern

 

[First]

404 voter fraud not found.

 

[emperus]

36k potential cases of voter fraud isn't significant?

In 2008 the vote difference between Obama and McCain was only 14k.

We've seen a number of close races for national elections in different states. Voter fraud, if actually occurring, of only a few thousand is indeed concerning.

Fern

I posted this earlier.

Let's dig a little closer into this.

In NC in the 2012 election 4,499,039 People Voted

Let's look at the worst case scenario which is probably definitely fraud.

If you assume the 765 voters with an exact match of first and last name, DOB and last four digits of SSN that voted in 2 states were actually fraud and were not supposed to vote in NC. Then the percentage of fraudulent votes cast in the 2012 election was .017% of all the votes cast.

Let's actually just assume all the 35,750 voters with the same first and last name and DOB that were registered in N.C. and another state and voted in both states in the 2012 general election were all fraudulent voters and shouldn't have voted in NC. Then the percentage of fraudulent votes cast in the 2012 election was 0.79% of all the votes cast.

Those assumptions are taking the worst case of both and assuming all were fraudulent votes, not errors and all the votes shouldn't have been cast in NC.

35,750 double votes is a rate of .79% of all votes. That's assuming none of those were meant to be cast in N.C. and assuming that every one of those votes were actually fraudulent, and not accounting errors or two people with same names and birthdays etc..

As I said earlier, I wonder what that rate is in comparison to other election errors, (lost ballots, unreadable ballots, election office errors, etc.).

I'm all for making sure the election system has less errors, but I don't think that is the goal of all these threads or any of the GOP's recent new election laws.

But, what I found interesting is that this report was achieved by states working together in some coalition. But I'm sure if the federal government somehow wanted to propose tighter standards, people would be clamoring about state's rights.

 

[CZroe]

404 voter fraud not found.

Except that it was found. Burying your head?

 

[Texashiker]

No, it doesn't.

BTW: nice job cutting out all the parts of my post that addressed why the OP was stupid and then claiming that I didn't address it.

When your first post was insults, you pretty much admitted you were wrong.

Part of your opposing ID cards is because there is little to no proof of voter fraud.

With thousands, tens of thousands of cases or voter fraud, that blows your lame ass excuses out of the water.

 

[fskimospy]

When your first post was insults, you pretty much admitted you were wrong.

Part of your opposing ID cards is because there is little to no proof of voter fraud.

With thousands, tens of thousands of cases or voter fraud, that blows your lame ass excuses out of the water.

No it doesn't. Not only is there no actual conclusion of fraud here, but there is definitely no evidence of in-person voter fraud, the only type of fraud that voter id would prevent.

Logical reasoning 101.

 

[Texashiker]

No it doesn't. Not only is there no actual conclusion of fraud here, but there is definitely no evidence of in-person voter fraud, the only type of fraud that voter id would prevent.

Bury your head in cement much? Forget sand, you went for cement.

Typical liberal. Someone shows you the numbers, and you say it does not prove anything.

 

[brycejones]

Bury your head in cement much? Forget sand, you went for cement.

Typical liberal. Someone shows you the numbers, and you say it does not prove anything.

Please explain how voter id laws would prevent the fraud alleged here.

 

[shortylickens]

Please explain how voter id laws would prevent the fraud alleged here.

It wouldnt.

We need to boot all the criminals out. And all the Americans who support them.
Then no one will give a flying lemming fuck.

 

[Fern]

No it doesn't. Not only is there no actual conclusion of fraud here, but there is definitely no evidence of in-person voter fraud, the only type of fraud that voter id would prevent.

Logical reasoning 101.

Have you somehow confirmed the suspicious votes were all done by absentee ballots?

If not, you're wrong about no "evidence" of fraud. Dead people voting after their date of death, people with the same info including the last 4 digits of their SS and even those with different digits are all evidence. It may not be conclusive evidence, but it is evidence.

Please explain how voter id laws would prevent the fraud alleged here.

In the absence of voter ID conclusive evidence is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. It will merely be written off as clerical error.

It may interest you to know that it seems one can register to vote in NC under a false SS#:

A current utility bill, bank statement, government check,
paycheck, or other government document that shows your
name and address.

http://www.ncsbe.gov/ncsbe/Portals/0/FilesP/NCVRRegFormv102013eng.pdf

The above documents can be used in lieu of a state issued ID (DL) and proof of SS# is not required, just name and address.

Hence, the fact that the last 4 digits don't match for those cases may not be of any importance since it's easy to circumvent.

However, if an ID is required, and the clerk checks it closely, the false SS# will be discovered.

Edit: It's amusing that liberals can figure out how HFT's can subvert a complicated electronic stock trading system but can't seem to accept that a shoddy voting system can also be subverted.

Fern

 

[First]

Edit: It's amusing that liberals can figure out how HFT's can subvert a complicated electronic stock trading system but can't seem to accept that a shoddy voting system can also be subverted.

Fern

What's amusing is your sad analogy, where you compare the incentives to subvert financial markets via HFT front-running (literally worth billions of dollars) to the incentives to subvert the electoral process, which are not only monetarily insignificant but are in fact likely to be prohibitively expensive if attempted with any coordinated effort.

I italicized the important parts for you.

 

[Fern]

What's amusing is your sad analogy, where you compare the incentives to subvert financial markets via HFT front-running (literally worth billions of dollars) to the incentives to subvert the electoral process, which are not only monetarily insignificant but are in fact likely to be prohibitively expensive if attempted with any coordinated effort.

I italicized the important parts for you.

I think politics are just as important, if not moreso, to some people than money.

Never mind the fact that politics is BIG money as everyone but you apparently acknowledges.

I appreciate that you are now italicizing the important parts of your posts. Most of us never thought there were any.

Edit: I take your post as tacitly agreeing that the system can be easily subverted. Otherwise, I think you would have argued that part.

Fern

 

[First]

I think politics are just as important, if not moreso, to some people than money.

Never mind the fact that politics is BIG money as everyone but you apparently acknowledges.

I appreciate that you are now italicizing the important parts of your posts. Most of us never thought there were any.

Any monetarily significant election (i.e. Senate, POTUS) is normally decided by many tens or hundreds of thousands, or millions of votes, so how would coordinated aggregate fraudulent voting to the tune of several thousand going one direction or the other change the outcome of any election other than monetarily insignificant ones (like many House races) typically decided by said measly few thousands votes? Are you arguing tens or hundreds of thousands, or hell even millions of coordinated fraudulent voting is taking place, and that public polling (which would discover large aggregate fraud after the fact because their polls would be all wrong) has somehow defied reason and never picked up this activity? And if you're saying this hasn't happened, but that there is incentive for it to happen, that you're aware of the reality that public polling would immediately pick up on this, and that any person(s) engaging in this activity would have to somehow come to the insane conclusion that they should commit aggregate voting fraud anyway despite a high likelihood of being investigated and found out? Further, are we to believe they would go through all this effort without at least some guarantee the election would actually swing in their direction?

Sorry, but your point about the relative incentives of HFT to elections is just extremely weak, to put it very generously.

Edit: I take your post as tacitly agreeing that the system can be easily subverted. Otherwise, I think you would have argued that part.

Any system can be gamed, so no I'm not agreeing with you on that point and certainly not agreeing that it's "easy". Whether there's any incentive for it to be gamed is another matter entirely, and fact is you just compared the financial incentives of HFT gaming to
elections for god sakes.

 

[Bowfinger]

[ ... ]
Edit: It's amusing that liberals can figure out how HFT's can subvert a complicated electronic stock trading system but can't seem to accept that a shoddy voting system can also be subverted.

Fern

Fern, I don't believe anyone is claiming the system cannot be subverted. That's just another weak straw man that subverts productive discussion about an important issue. Clearly it can be subverted, in many ways, including in-person voter impersonation. The points have been and are:

1. The incidence of such in-person fraud is miniscule, in spite of the GOP's best efforts to find it (and sometimes invent it)
2. In-person fraud makes no real sense because it is the least efficient and one of the most risky ways to steal votes, one at a time
3. The requirement of a current, state-issued photo ID does nothing to prevent far more prevalent forms of fraud, and is easily circumvented by anyone considering in-person fraud (absentee ballot instead, e.g.). In short, it does virtually nothing to address the problem of vote fraud.
4. The requirement of a current, state-issued, photo ID will disenfranchise millions of legitimate voters. The cost in legitimate votes lost vastly exceeds the benefit of illegitimate votes prevented.

The real "problem" such ID laws solve is the problem of Republicans increasingly losing elections as America's demographics shift. Some Republicans have even conceded this, and officials trying to defend their ID laws in court have been forced to admit they cannot show evidence of material in-person fraud. This ID drive is all about rigging elections, plain and simple.

Re. this specific report, however, let me state again that I absolutely agree that NC should investigate these discrepancies and prosecute anyone found committing fraud. I am concerned they will instead follow AZ's lead: blow lots of purely partisan smoke while doing practically nothing.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Whether there's any incentive for it to be gamed is another matter entirely, and fact is you just compared the financial incentives of HFT gaming to
elections for god sakes.

You're mistaken.

It's your post that brought up incentives. Mine mentioned the complexity of the HFT system to the relatively simple system of registering to vote and noted that liberals accept the former can be gamed but not the latter. There are many in this very thread arguing it can't.

Looks like you are one:

Edit: I take your post as tacitly agreeing that the system can be easily subverted. Otherwise, I think you would have argued that part.

Any system can be gamed, so no I'm not agreeing with you on that point and certainly not agreeing that it's "easy".

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Re. this specific report, however, let me state again that I absolutely agree that NC should investigate these discrepancies and prosecute anyone found committing fraud. I am concerned they will instead follow AZ's lead: blow lots of purely partisan smoke while doing practically nothing.

That's part of the point. In the absence of ID it cannot be proven who it was that cast the second vote:

"It wasn't me, it was someone who claimed to be me." Or "the clerk must have made an error when they checked off my name."

Under presents circumstances it basically requires a confession to get a conviction.

Fern

 

[MomentsofSanity]

That's part of the point. In the absence of ID it cannot be proven who it was that cast the second vote:

"It wasn't me, it was someone who claimed to be me." Or "the clerk must have made an error when they checked off my name."

Under presents circumstances it basically requires a confession to get a conviction.

Fern

And yet election after election no one seems to show up only to find out they already voted. We don't seem to have audits or reports showing that happening to even require determining who did it.

And yet the easiest ways to manipulate the voting system are entirely ignored for what offers the lowest payout with the greatest risk. No one is suggesting anything for absentee voting. Nothing. That doesn't strike you as odd when it's the easiest way to defraud the system?

 

[Fern]

-snip-
No one is suggesting anything for absentee voting. That doesn't strike you as odd when it's the easiest way to defraud the system?

I'm not happy that's not being fixed, or improved.

I'm not happy our voter rolls are utter garbage and no one's doing anything about it. (Well, the fed govt did mandate they be audited, but with a lot of errors discovered the states said they aren't going to fix them.)

I don't like the electronic voting machines and lack of a paper trail that could be used in auditing.

I think the whole thing, from top-to-bottom, needs to be improved.

But, TBH, I don't know what to do about absentee ballots. The mere existence of that system is problematic. The only suggestion I've heard is to have the absentee voter include their state issued ID number on the ballot. But that brings you right back to requiring an ID to vote.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Have you somehow confirmed the suspicious votes were all done by absentee ballots?

If not, you're wrong about no "evidence" of fraud. Dead people voting after their date of death, people with the same info including the last 4 digits of their SS and even those with different digits are all evidence. It may not be conclusive evidence, but it is evidence.



In the absence of voter ID conclusive evidence is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain. It will merely be written off as clerical error.

It may interest you to know that it seems one can register to vote in NC under a false SS#:


http://www.ncsbe.gov/ncsbe/Portals/0/FilesP/NCVRRegFormv102013eng.pdf

The above documents can be used in lieu of a state issued ID (DL) and proof of SS# is not required, just name and address.

Hence, the fact that the last 4 digits don't match for those cases may not be of any importance since it's easy to circumvent.

However, if an ID is required, and the clerk checks it closely, the false SS# will be discovered.

Edit: It's amusing that liberals can figure out how HFT's can subvert a complicated electronic stock trading system but can't seem to accept that a shoddy voting system can also be subverted.

Fern

Nope, it is evidence of errors and discrepancies, it isn't evidence of fraud. That's like saying the fact that money is missing from your wallet is evidence of theft. It isn't. The crime of fraud or theft is an intentional act, and there's no way to know that without investigation.

 

[mrjminer]

I'm not happy that's not being fixed, or improved.

I'm not happy our voter rolls are utter garbage and no one's doing anything about it. (Well, the fed govt did mandate they be audited, but with a lot of errors discovered the states said they aren't going to fix them.)

I don't like the electronic voting machines and lack of a paper trail that could be used in auditing.

I think the whole thing, from top-to-bottom, needs to be improved.

But, TBH, I don't know what to do about absentee ballots. The mere existence of that system is problematic. The only suggestion I've heard is to have the absentee voter include their state issued ID number on the ballot. But that brings you right back to requiring an ID to vote.

Fern

Yea, absentee ballots are a significant issue. They should require the most authentication of all. I can't think of anything else legitimate that's supposed to be held to strict regulations / guidelines that requires more validation doing it in person than doing it electronically / absently.