You have failed to substantiate the Republicans claim of systemic voter fraud.
You lose again.
You lose again.
You have yet to establish that anyone in this forum recently has ever even claimed that... (One comment in this thread involving bigfoot was pretty clearly talking about very massive scale voting fraud in the 2016 election rather than it ever having occurred period if that is what you are thinking of with this comment.) Its indisputably clear that most posters have taken the position that such cases are rare rather than something that alters election results or justifies things such as heavy handed voter id laws which end up preventing valid voters from voting.
imported_tajmahal
Lifer
- Jul 9, 2009
- 10,719
- 2,064
- 136
What claim was made in the OP about "systemic" ?
Please link to where the OP made that claim.
Thank you.
imported_tajmahal
Lifer
- Jul 9, 2009
- 10,719
- 2,064
- 136
There's absolutely nothing I can do for you beside ask you to read the OP's claim and what Jhnn posted.
The phrase the OP originally used was "widespread 'voter fraud'", and a reasonable reading of the post does not lead to the conclusion he was claiming voter fraud has never occurred at all. If you read the original link its pretty clear the individual in the article was refuting a claim of fraud on a massive scale or the like rather than claiming absolutely no voting fraud has ever occur period, which further clearly supports this as a reasonable interpretation of the post. It sounds like you might benefit from a remedial reading class if you were previously confused about this...
imported_tajmahal
Lifer
- Jul 9, 2009
- 10,719
- 2,064
- 136
Over 1,000 cases seems pretty "widespread" to me. Over 900 criminal convictions would affirm it.
zzyzxroad
Diamond Member
- Jan 29, 2017
- 3,244
- 2,260
- 136
We have already indisputably established that many of those cases did not involve what can be plausibly considered actual voting fraud.
The issue it that the Heritage Foundation is very misleadingly calling cases of petition or registration fraud which do not change actual voting total as voter fraud. (It did not appear the Trump panel was even looking at petition fraud as far I could determine.)
Out of a population of over 300 million and going back to at least 2001 (it might be measurably earlier I didn't fully check) that it not what would truly be considered widespread. Furthermore, as I have already noted a significant portion of violations pretty clearly involved people who believed they were legally valid voters (making the fraud description at best questionable) such as former felons released from jail. (With a key issue being voting rules for felons vary by state, so in other states they would have been valid voters at the point in question.) There also have been a few documented cases among the others of legal US residents rather clearly getting honestly confused and thinking this allowed them to legally vote and not realizing they had to wait to be citizens to do so. (Taking the risk knowingly seems generally unlikely since among other things it could actually lead to deportation when all they had to do was wait a bit longer to become citizens.) Note that the idea all of these cases involved people voting for Democrats is also wrong when you look at known facts.
Basically you're talking about a spectacularly dubious interpretation to support a claim of "widespread fraud". (Extremely rare isolated fraud which did not change election results would clearly be a more accurate interpretation of the available data.)
That went 5 to 4 Bush despite the fact it was obvious that conservative the real voter fraud was there to insure those who wanted Gore wound up voting for somebody else because of the rigged ballot format. It was obvious and proven that Gore actually was the preferred candidate. I, for one, will never forget what really happened nor the massive damage the Supreme court did to my nation. The only reason Republicans ever win anything is by profound acts of immorality and massive cultural brainwashing.
So, Trump's claim of 3-5M fraudulent votes cast in 2016 is completely fraudulent & his commission was a sham.
5to1baby1in5
Golden Member
- Apr 27, 2001
- 1,237
- 102
- 106
umbrella39
Lifer
- Jun 11, 2004
- 13,819
- 1,126
- 126
Would you like me to eviscerate this bullshit you've linked again last last time? Why are you such an America hating lying sack of shit?
BonzaiDuck
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2004
- 15,727
- 1,456
- 126
Notice he wouldn't take even a few minutes or a few lines to answer my previous post?
I'm not going to repeat some very simple facts. I've heard basically sane Republicans argue that "every single instance of voter fraud" has major significance. One can argue that in some very, very, very few cases, the instance of voter fraud might turn an election with an initial spread of two or three votes. But most all attempts at fraud would be detected. Dead people are on the voter registration list because -- people die. As for the illegals as they're called, it's like Lewis Black's skit about the gays in black capes and very tasty black pumps who go to the American family's cul-de-sac in an ominous-looking black van and knock on the door to start ***ing each other in the a** and yelling "We're here and we're queer!" I'm sure all those illegals are spending their time trying to phony up registrations so they can vote for unfamiliar candidates in an unfamiliar country while they live 24 to a room to work half minimum wage and send a few bucks back home.
I refuse to knowingly do business with the Trumpie space-aliens in any of my routine household responsibilities. And I let 'em know why. When you're out on the water looking for navigation, a flat-world assumption is worth less than nothing. So might this extend to their non-political pursuits.
Dummies.
Here are probably some of the clutter-brained notions of the ignorantly uninformed.
"To assess the amount and to deter voter fraud, you have to go back do a 100% sample of the population." Essentially, a complete vote recount. Wrong. If you didn't want to rely on the precincts and wanted to test at the state level, you'd never need a sample bigger than 1,000 to estimate the amount of fraud.
"You can't trust all those 161,000 precincts to detect fraud." [But a better administered system in one precinct or state may be as much an indication of the amount of real fraud in another state or precinct, with no significant differences in the demography, or even if there were.]
"The Donald won the popular vote, because there are 3 million illegals in California." A declining statistic no less, since it was measured around 2015. Hillary won the popular vote by the delta of the final tally, and any few instances of voter fraud were detected.
Last edited:
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 110,597
- 29,231
- 146
Jesus fucking christ: You are one unapologetic baby-grenading moron. Is this the depth of your contextual skills? Do you think that you have convinced anyone that you are literate?
BonzaiDuck
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2004
- 15,727
- 1,456
- 126
The Heritage statistics? Ha, ha, hahahaha!
Look at any state, and it is close to what I said it was -- those are multi-year statistics over several election cycles! For any given year, you can count maybe three cases! Were the votes counted? Probably not, unless they were detected between elections through some special effort! How were they detected? By the precincts at the very least. Next at the county level. Review what testing is done at the state level.
And the convictions don't show the political orientation of the perpetrator. What do you think? Wanna test that?
Four cases in California that might have occurred in the 2016 election. Again, how detected? By the routine process in precincts, counties and states. There are more than 60 counties in CA, each with separately administered precincts. Are these handful of four for one election just the tip of the iceberg? No. They would've turned up in the routine process, and the routine process would've turned up any others if they existed. The frequency there -- occurring at most in < 2% of the counties -- is enough to show that there is no significant problem in one of the largest states by population and geographic area in the US.
So the GOP wants to pile on more and more restrictions on voter registration. That's their solution. Their only other option is to scrutinize voting with massive costs and -- according to the existing statistics -- no benefit or payoff in additional detections.
- Feb 6, 2002
- 36,060
- 27,793
- 136
I don't take these numbers at face value as 983 people committing in person fraud. Get another source and show some details. These are just numbers Did you not see the results from your God's co called committee?
Now some news for you even if I did believe the 983, if you place that against all the votes since Bush (he was the first to investigate this bullshit) the number is statistically zero.
Did you know there is more arsenic in your drinking water then in person voter fraud? Maybe you need to give up this ghost and stop trying to suppress the minority vote.
Last edited:
- Feb 6, 2002
- 36,060
- 27,793
- 136
He also forgets all his bullshit has been debunked every time it goes to court. Only the weak minded would continue to believe it.
Oh yeah that explains it.
soundforbjt
Lifer
- Feb 15, 2002
- 17,787
- 6,035
- 136
983 out of how many hundreds of millions of votes cast in the last 8-10 years? Real problem there in need of immediate concern...
Correction, it goes back to at least 2001 for the stats so it is more like 17+ years... (Including primary elections, municipal elections, special elections, and off year state elections which are held in a couple cases.)
It's trivial to come up with honest numbers-
https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/debunking-voter-fraud-myth
Thousands of people all over the country work very hard to prevent election fraud of all kinds & to prosecute miscreants.
Im addressing your point mr i fail at reading comprehension.
And your point is meaningless data. There are over 150000 precincts accross the country. Now multiply by 20+ years.
1000 possible incidents?
Pure statistical noise.
Unlike the actual evidence of russian involvement in our election.
Republicans used to be about certain core values like small govenment, free enterprise etc. Now its all about victory over truth, screw policy.
In other words, fake conservatives like our President.
Capt Caveman
Lifer
- Jan 30, 2005
- 34,547
- 651
- 126
To sum it all up, no election has ever been decided by voter fraud. Thanks Taj and Trump for clearing it up!!
imported_tajmahal
Lifer
- Jul 9, 2009
- 10,719
- 2,064
- 136
I know there's arsenic in my drinking water. It's at acceptable levels. I also know there's widespread voter fraud in this country that are not at acceptable levels to me. Maybe they are to you. Just don't try to claim that it doesn't exist.
imported_tajmahal
Lifer
- Jul 9, 2009
- 10,719
- 2,064
- 136
"1000 possible incidents"? There were over 900 convictions..... convictions.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conviction
No "possible" about it.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
Facebook
Twitter