More charges of attempted vote fraud in Michigan.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,026
2,879
136
By the way everyone, this is a Fox News article sneakily presented as mainstream news. Click the link and the Fox News graphic is right there on the top left.

The only noteworthy line is the less than 1% thing which is designed to paint the impression that 1% is somehow near the amount of fraud that could have occurred. It absolutely isn't. The article would have been just as accurate if it read "less than 0.001%", but then the OP wouldn't have been affected.

This is a case example of media manipulation.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
39,635
20,222
146
Fwiw, my signature is almost never the same twice. It's likely mine would fail validation. I'd have to start actually practicing it again and put some effort into really getting it legible and repeatable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

nakedfrog

No Lifer
Apr 3, 2001
61,976
17,741
136
I don't trust the process, but having the Federal government step in would be unconstitutional. I'd rather have the States clean up their processes and pay more attention to prevent vote fraud, by using voter id, signature checking of absentee ballots and to pass laws against vote harvesting.
No, that's why we need signature checking, but nice try.
Okay.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
38,767
31,818
136
I don't trust the process, but having the Federal government step in would be unconstitutional. I'd rather have the States clean up their processes and pay more attention to prevent vote fraud, by using voter id, signature checking of absentee ballots and to pass laws against vote harvesting.
If the Feds had no say in national elections the 65 Voting Rights Act wouldn't have passed. Are you saying it wasn't necessary?
 

interchange

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
8,026
2,879
136
If the Feds had no say in national elections the 65 Voting Rights Act wouldn't have passed. Are you saying it wasn't necessary?

The federal government clearly has the right to set forth parameters for which the states run their elections when it comes to the integrity of those elections. That includes protecting the rights of the voters and the security of the process.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
38,767
31,818
136
The federal government clearly has the right to set forth parameters for which the states run their elections when it comes to the integrity of those elections. That includes protecting the rights of the voters and the security of the process.
We aren't talking about the feds taking over elections, just establish a floor of requirements.

Example no where in this country should anyone have to wait more then 30 minutes to vote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
No, that's why we need signature checking, but nice try.

Yeh, but they have signature checking in Michigan & nobody is arguing against it other than Repubs who have the states' rights bug up their ass. They can readily institute it in states they control but a contrived issue is what they want, a basic boogeyman argument against mail-in voting.

You're just here to spread the FUD.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,758
2,086
136

"
Last Thursday, the Racine County, Wisconsin sheriff’s office held an hour-long press conference detailing the results of an investigation into a complaint the office received of potential violations of state election law. While leftist media ignored the story, the investigation revealed both blatant violations of state law by election officials and detailed evidence of voter fraud by stealing elderly Americans’ votes.

The methodical presentation by the Racine County Sheriff’s Office provided the context, as well as additional texture, to one discrete aspect of the irregularities that took place in Wisconsin during the 2020 presidential election. The press briefing highlighted the Wisconsin Election Commission’s illegal directive to municipalities not to “use the Special Voting Deputy process to service residents in care facilities,” and instead to “transmit absentee ballots to those voters by mail.”


Those well-versed in the many violations of election law that occurred in the last election have long known of the WEC’s override of the legislatively mandated use of special voting deputies. But Thursday’s presentation provided an accessible summary of the situation that (should have) resonated beyond political lines and put a figurative face to the fraud enabled by the state’s election officials’ own apparent fraud.

Sgt. Michael Luell, who led the investigation and presented his findings during the briefing, also has a law degree and has served as a prosecutor. This unique combination allowed him to simplify the situation, which he did by first highlighting key portions of Wisconsin code in a crisp PowerPoint presentation.
Ignoring the Law Because COVID
Section 6.875 of the Wisconsin election code provides the “exclusive means” of absentee voting in residential care facilities, the presentation noted. That statute requires the local municipality to dispatch two special voting deputies, or “SVDs,” to a facility. The SVDs must then personally deliver a ballot to residents of the facility and must witness the voting process. The statute further provides that only a relative or an SVD may assist the voter and then, following the vote, must seal the ballot envelope and deliver it to the clerk.

In addition to laying out Section 6.875’s mandates for voting in residential care facilities, Luell provided quotes and video clips establishing that the WEC commissioners knew their directive to eliminate SVDs violated state law.


Further, in an attempt to justify their decision to violate state law, WEC commissioners focused on the dangers of COVID to the senior community, Luell stressed that in response to the WEC’s request that the governor “suspend” the portions of Wisconsin election law related to SVDs, the governor’s office informed the WEC that the governor lacked that power.

Moreover, the WEC continued to claim to override the SVD provisions even after the governor’s lockdown orders—which did not ban SVDs from nursing homes in any event—expired in September. Then, to illustrate the absurdity of the WEC’s position, Luell highlighted for the public the visitors allowed into senior facilities. His report detailed facility access allowed from April to November in 2020 for the following:"
...................................................................

Additional evidence presented of clear cases of vote fraud that haven't been prosecuted yet.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136

"
Last Thursday, the Racine County, Wisconsin sheriff’s office held an hour-long press conference detailing the results of an investigation into a complaint the office received of potential violations of state election law. While leftist media ignored the story, the investigation revealed both blatant violations of state law by election officials and detailed evidence of voter fraud by stealing elderly Americans’ votes.

The methodical presentation by the Racine County Sheriff’s Office provided the context, as well as additional texture, to one discrete aspect of the irregularities that took place in Wisconsin during the 2020 presidential election. The press briefing highlighted the Wisconsin Election Commission’s illegal directive to municipalities not to “use the Special Voting Deputy process to service residents in care facilities,” and instead to “transmit absentee ballots to those voters by mail.”


Those well-versed in the many violations of election law that occurred in the last election have long known of the WEC’s override of the legislatively mandated use of special voting deputies. But Thursday’s presentation provided an accessible summary of the situation that (should have) resonated beyond political lines and put a figurative face to the fraud enabled by the state’s election officials’ own apparent fraud.

Sgt. Michael Luell, who led the investigation and presented his findings during the briefing, also has a law degree and has served as a prosecutor. This unique combination allowed him to simplify the situation, which he did by first highlighting key portions of Wisconsin code in a crisp PowerPoint presentation.
Ignoring the Law Because COVID
Section 6.875 of the Wisconsin election code provides the “exclusive means” of absentee voting in residential care facilities, the presentation noted. That statute requires the local municipality to dispatch two special voting deputies, or “SVDs,” to a facility. The SVDs must then personally deliver a ballot to residents of the facility and must witness the voting process. The statute further provides that only a relative or an SVD may assist the voter and then, following the vote, must seal the ballot envelope and deliver it to the clerk.

In addition to laying out Section 6.875’s mandates for voting in residential care facilities, Luell provided quotes and video clips establishing that the WEC commissioners knew their directive to eliminate SVDs violated state law.


Further, in an attempt to justify their decision to violate state law, WEC commissioners focused on the dangers of COVID to the senior community, Luell stressed that in response to the WEC’s request that the governor “suspend” the portions of Wisconsin election law related to SVDs, the governor’s office informed the WEC that the governor lacked that power.

Moreover, the WEC continued to claim to override the SVD provisions even after the governor’s lockdown orders—which did not ban SVDs from nursing homes in any event—expired in September. Then, to illustrate the absurdity of the WEC’s position, Luell highlighted for the public the visitors allowed into senior facilities. His report detailed facility access allowed from April to November in 2020 for the following:"
...................................................................

Additional evidence presented of clear cases of vote fraud that haven't been prosecuted yet.


So what? Show us the fraud.
 

Hail The Brain Slug

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2005
3,787
3,105
146
So what? Show us the fraud.

The only fraud here is they didn't force the special voting deputies to spread the freedom virus to kill all the old people, saving the government millions in social security and medicare costs. You know how frugal those republicans and trumpers are.
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,684
5,226
136
So what? Show us the fraud.


What? Isn't it enough to cry "voter fraud"? Why should there be any requirement for proof of widespread voter fraud that's been proven over and over and over and over to be non-existent....well, except maybe in North Carolina.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,684
5,226
136
True, thank you. At worst it's vote fraud.

No, it's not.

And still waiting for you to point out the 20 states without sig. matching in the article you linked previously....or where it spoke to Covid problems. (As if anyone will get an actual answer from grenade-boi)
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

balloonshark

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2008
7,041
3,522
136
Fwiw, my signature is almost never the same twice. It's likely mine would fail validation. I'd have to start actually practicing it again and put some effort into really getting it legible and repeatable.
I'm the same way. I couldn't get my signatures to match even if I practiced. Checking signatures is the same as telling me that my vote won't count. It's also telling anyone with certain disabilities that they shouldn't vote. People with anxiety, Parkinsons, diabetes, old age, MS, etc. are going to have a tough time voting.
 

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,345
126
I write so infrequently right now that the first thing I write that day doesn't look like the next couple sentences. Half of my issue is just carpal tunnel and a TFTT injury and a locked up wrist. Takes a bit to loosen up. It's kind of a bullshit check TBH.
 

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,684
5,226
136
When I was "signing in" at my local voting precinct in the 2020 election, my form slipped as I was writing and the signature that was created was illegible as my signature...more a line of squiggles that did not match what was on my license, which they used to corroborate my signature. Joke is all it is, unless and until you want to disqualify votes....then the "It's (signature) not an exact match, therefore illegal vote and not counted" crap starts, much like what the GA GOP intends upon doing in Fulton Co.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Meghan54

Lifer
Oct 18, 2009
11,684
5,226
136
All I see is the slimy innuendo of conspiracy theory.

And not a good one at that. Kinda like the Chinese ballots conspiracy theory. Guess idiots don't realize absentee ballots are bar coded and recorded prior to being sent...and then rechecked when they get returned to ensure a match.

Or the Italian satellite that's changing votes on voting machines while they're not connected to anything other than an electric socket.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,697
6,257
126
November 4, 2020, a Date that will live in infamy! With greater than 159 million potential fraudulent Votes cast! Oh, the Humanity!!
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Meghan54

soundforbjt

Lifer
Feb 15, 2002
17,788
6,041
136
So...are all republicans that won in states trump lost ready to give up their seats because of, you know, voter fraud? This would show their true support for The Big Lie.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,758
2,086
136
No, it's not.

And still waiting for you to point out the 20 states without sig. matching in the article you linked previously....or where it spoke to Covid problems. (As if anyone will get an actual answer from grenade-boi)
I posted a link to a story that contained your answers. If you don't care to read it, that's on you, not me.