Massive voter fraud discovered in North Carolina

[Fern]

How do you know she was called up for jury duty due to her status as a registered voter? They pull jury lists from a lot of different sources including voter rolls, drivers license/state ID card rolls, etc, etc.

Here we go by voter rolls.

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

How does one prove that it was clerical error?

Fern

I can only speculate, but I suspect it is often as easy as going back and matching voting forms with the rolls. (In Iowa, at least, when we show up to vote we have to complete and sign a small form listing our name and address. If memory serves, it's the usual "swear under threat of perjury it's really me" sort of thing. I don't know how common such practices are.) In any case, assuming a similar system, it would often be easy to show even though the poll worker checked off John Adam Smith, it was really John Paul Smith who voted.

 

[Fern]

I can only speculate, but I suspect it is often as easy as going back and matching voting forms with the rolls. (In Iowa, at least, when we show up to vote we have to complete and sign a small form listing our name and address. If memory serves, it's the usual "swear under threat of perjury it's really me" sort of thing. I don't know how common such practices are.) In any case, assuming a similar system, it would often be easy to show even though the poll worker checked off John Adam Smith, it was really John Paul Smith who voted.

Interesting.

Here we show up, tell them our name (they put a check mark next to it) and go vote (electric machine thing). There is no paper to sign etc.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Here we go by voter rolls.

Fern

I strongly suspect your jury pool is made of more than just registered voters.

 

[Fern]

Does this take into account people moving out of state and reregistering to vote? Should be lots of duplicate names showing up because of that.
Grandson Jimmy named for Grandpa James, Great Grandmother getting a namesake, all the Sr.s and Jr.s around.
They have names and addresses on these fraudulent voters, right! So let us see how many go to court.

No.

If you read the article you'd see that even the 35,750 voted in BOTH states.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Looks like a lot of people moved without telling their elections office.

From the article:

35,750 voters with the same first and last name and DOB were registered in N.C. and another state and voted in both states in the 2012 general election.

It's not merely that they are registered in both states, it's that they voted in both states.

Fern

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

I strongly suspect your jury pool is made of more than just registered voters.

http://www.nccourts.org/Support/FAQs/FAQs.asp?Type=1#180

 

[Fern]

State lawmakers last year mandated the State Board of Elections to enter into an "Interstate Crosscheck" – a compact of 28 states that agreed to check their voter registration records against those of other states. The program is run by a Kansas consortium, checking 101 million voter records. The largest states – CA, FL, NY, and TX – are not part of the consortium.

FL (and probably NY) really needs to join.

Here in NC we have a ton of people who live here for about 6 months and then in FL for the other 6 months.

Fern

 

[Bowfinger]

No.

If you read the article you'd see that even the 35,750 voted in BOTH states.

Fern

Yes, but those are matched only on name and DOB. Given a U.S. birth rate of about 11,000 per day (4 million per year), there's a high likelihood that many of them share the same first and last names (especially since names tend to follow popular trends). Again, it deserves investigation, but it's likely that most of these are just coincidences.

 

[Fern]

Yes, but those are matched only on name and DOB. Given a U.S. birth rate of about 11,000 per day (4 million per year), there's a high likelihood that many of them share the same first and last names (especially since names tend to follow popular trends). Again, it deserves investigation, but it's likely that most of these are just coincidences.

Yeah, I understand that.

It seems some believe the 35k number is simply double registration and fail to realize that it also says both actually voted.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

http://www.nccourts.org/Support/FAQs/FAQs.asp?Type=1#180

Yes, that's what I figured.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

I can only speculate, but I suspect it is often as easy as going back and matching voting forms with the rolls. (In Iowa, at least, when we show up to vote we have to complete and sign a small form listing our name and address. If memory serves, it's the usual "swear under threat of perjury it's really me" sort of thing. I don't know how common such practices are.) In any case, assuming a similar system, it would often be easy to show even though the poll worker checked off John Adam Smith, it was really John Paul Smith who voted.

Ummm... I never had to sign any small form when I lived in Iowa(moved in 2012).

Also, I love the excuses being trotted out here. As if clerical error or the other excuses are the cause of this. Really? these are all "mistakes"? Sheesh...

 

[HomerJS]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuOT1bRYdK8

 

[WHAMPOM]

From the article:



It's not merely that they are registered in both states, it's that they voted in both states.

Fern

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.

 

[hal2kilo]

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.

This is what I don't get about bringing up this example of voter fraud. How on earth could this be accomplished by in person voting, which is the impetus for requiring voters to have IDs (supposedly).

 

[Bowfinger]

Ummm... I never had to sign any small form when I lived in Iowa(moved in 2012).

Then you had to sign a voter register with the same declaration of eligibility printed on it. Iowa law allows either option: http://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/Cool-ICE/default.asp?category=billinfo&service=IowaCode&input=49.77

Also, I love the excuses being trotted out here. As if clerical error or the other excuses are the cause of this. Really? these are all "mistakes"? Sheesh...

Your disbelief doesn't change the FACT that in past investigations of such discrepancies, the great majority were found to be due to clerical errors or other benign issues, NOT fraud. Of course we cannot know the cause of these NC discrepancies until they are investigated.

 

[WHAMPOM]

So did writers of this article take the registration rolls of any voting district, track down every listed voter for authenticity(do any actual research)for a base of concrete numbers not pulled out of their ass?

 

[WHAMPOM]

This is what I don't get about bringing up this example of voter fraud. How on earth could this be accomplished by in person voting, which is the impetus for requiring voters to have IDs (supposedly).

It has been done by trucking bus loads of people from one small district to another to fix a closely tied election. Early elections reports not going your way, send in a few bus loads of votes to even it out. Local elections, 1940s, big cities, corrupt political machines. Think Chicago.
Well that was the hard way. usually they just owned the people that counted the votes, it cost less.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Then you had to sign a voter register with the same declaration of eligibility printed on it. Iowa law allows either option: http://coolice.legis.iowa.gov/Cool-ICE/default.asp?category=billinfo&service=IowaCode&input=49.77



Your disbelief doesn't change the FACT that in past investigations of such discrepancies, the great majority were found to be due to clerical errors or other benign issues, NOT fraud. Of course we cannot know the cause of these NC discrepancies until they are investigated.

Yes, voter registration you sign something to that effect, but no one in my precincts(2 different ones) had to sign when voting. Just state name and they check you off.

I didn't say I didn't believe there could be clerical errors, it's just that it doesn't excuse all of them and no reasonable person would try to suggest they were all errors.

 

[hal2kilo]

It has been done by trucking bus loads of people from one small district to another to fix a closely tied election. Early elections reports not going your way, send in a few bus loads of votes to even it out. Local elections, 1940s, big cities, corrupt political machines. Think Chicago.
Well that was the hard way. usually they just owned the people that counted the votes, it cost less.

Last sentence is much more probable.

 

[Bowfinger]

Yes, voter registration you sign something to that effect, but no one in my precincts(2 different ones) had to sign when voting. Just state name and they check you off.

Then either your precincts were violating the law, or your memory fails you. That law covers voting, not registration. Although I only linked the relevant section of the Code of Iowa, I also found other documents confirming it, for example county instructions to poll workers. I linked the law itself since it applies to the whole state.

I didn't say I didn't believe there could be clerical errors, it's just that it doesn't excuse all of them and no reasonable person would try to suggest they were all errors.

First, don't insinuate words I didn't say. I didn't say they were all errors.

Second, you've reached your conclusion first and are now trying to bend facts to fit them. Given that the great majority of such discrepancies in the past have been found to be errors, a reasonable person would be perfectly justified in suspecting they may all be errors this time. Of course said reasonable person would also recognize that he lacks enough information to conclude they were all errors ... which is why I have not reached that conclusion. Instead, yet again, I agree all should be investigated so we can determine how many -- if any -- were actual fraud. Any fraud found should be prosecuted.

An unreasonable person, on the other hand, might claim this proves "massive voter fraud", or even that most of these discrepancies are due to fraud. Facts from past investigations show this is highly unlikely.

 

[Thebobo]

nm

 

[werepossum]

Yeah, I understand that.

It seems some believe the 35k number is simply double registration and fail to realize that it also says both actually voted.

Fern

That was me, my bad. Sorry.

This is what I don't get about bringing up this example of voter fraud. How on earth could this be accomplished by in person voting, which is the impetus for requiring voters to have IDs (supposedly).

Easily. John Smith moves from Raleigh, NC to Miami, FL. Bob White knows John Smith moved, but he really really really wants his candidate to win, so he merely goes down to John's former Raleigh precinct, tells them he is John Smith, and votes a second time.

Yes, voter registration you sign something to that effect, but no one in my precincts(2 different ones) had to sign when voting. Just state name and they check you off.

I didn't say I didn't believe there could be clerical errors, it's just that it doesn't excuse all of them and no reasonable person would try to suggest they were all errors.

Man, those little old ladies scrutinize my license AND my signature.

 

[Fern]

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.

I don't know what you're trying to say, but you should probably be aware that here in NC one can vote in person over a period of about 10 days-2 weeks.

And I don't know if you're serious or not, but registration officials hardly purge anything.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

I don't know what you're trying to say, but you should probably be aware that here in NC one can vote in person over a period of about 10 days-2 weeks.

And I don't know if you're serious or not, but registration officials hardly purge anything.

Fern

I forgot about early voting, although I had considered the possibility of voting absentee once or twice.