WorthyNews: More than 5,000 out-of-state voters may have tipped New Hampshire against Trump

[WorthyNewsBot]

(Worthy News) - More than 6,500 people registered to vote in New Hampshire on Nov. 8 using out-of-state driver’s licenses, and since then the vast majority have neither obtained an in-state license nor registered a motor vehicle.

⦁ 6,540 people registered and voted on Nov. 8, based on presenting out-of-state licenses.
⦁ As of Aug. 30, about 15 percent (1,014 of the voters) had been issued New Hampshire driver’s licenses.
⦁ Οf the remaining 5,526, barely more than 200 (3.3 percent) had registered a motor vehicle in New Hampshire.

New Hampshire law gives drivers 60 days upon establishing residence to obtain a state license.

But more than 80 percent of voters who registered on Nov. 8 using out-of-state driver’s licenses, or 5,313 of them, neither had a state license nor registered a motor vehicle almost 10 months later.

In the presidential race, Democrat Hillary Clinton defeated Republican Donald Trump in New Hampshire by 2,736 votes. In an even tighter race, for the Granite State’s U.S. Senate seat, Democratic challenger Maggie Hassan defeated incumbent Republican Kelly Ayotte by 1,017 votes. [ Source (Read More...) ]

View the full article

[ayin jade]

So apparently so few fraudulent votes can make a difference. 

[Running Gator]

What this "story" fails to point out is the proven fact that the vast majority of those votes cast using out of state licenses were in college towns.  If you take the college towns out of it then mixed throughout the rest of the state those using out of state licenses we in single digits in each town.  Not really the sign of an organized attempt to drive to the state and vote.  Most college students still on mom and dad's insurance will not change their licenses.  

As with all the other fake news stories on this topic, there still is no evidence of any widespread voter fraud. 

 

[George]

1 minute ago, Running Gator said:

As with all the other fake news stories on this topic, there still is no evidence of any widespread voter fraud. 

The elections are SOO CLOSE -- you don't need WIDESPREAD voter fraud -- just enough to tip the scales ... 

[Running Gator]

3 minutes ago, George said:

The elections are SOO CLOSE -- you don't need WIDESPREAD voter fraud -- just enough to tip the scales ... 

And there's still no good evidence of that happening.  Even in this case, pretending that most were not college students as their locations would suggest, it is just as likely that Trump supporters from Mass knew their state was a lost cause and drove to NH to try and tip that state and failed.  

Here is a much more in depth article with lots of actual data and other links if anyone really wants to dig into this. 

http://nhpr.org/post/where-were-out-state-ids-used-vote-new-hampshire-last-november#stream/0

[Guest shiloh357]

2 hours ago, ayin jade said:

So apparently so few fraudulent votes can make a difference. 

But, but,but... those are votes cast against Trump and so that can't be fraud.   Now, if the votes were cast in Trump's favor, then the Left would be screeching to the heavens about voter fraud. 

[Running Gator]

9 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

But, but,but... those are votes cast against Trump and so that can't be fraud.   Now, if the votes were cast in Trump's favor, then the Left would be screeching to the heavens about voter fraud. 

There is no way at all to know how they were cast for, such things are not tracked in our country.   In this case not even party affiliation is known, not that it means much anymore these days. 

[Guest shiloh357]

8 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

There is no way at all to know how they were cast for, such things are not tracked in our country.   In this case not even party affiliation is known, not that it means much anymore these days. 

That's interesting cause states have ways of finding voter fraud, so there is a way to know how many fraudulent votes have been cast, and which districts they were cast.   They may not be able to know the person who cast it, necessarily, but there is a way to know. 

All that matters is that since the votes were not cast in Trump's favor, it doesn't matter if there was fraud or not. 

[Running Gator]

21 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

All that matters is that since the votes were not cast in Trump's favor...

Please provide proof of this statement of fact that you keep repeating.  

[SavedByGrace1980]

Voter fraud exists - I don't think anyone can argue that.  Now - how widespread is it and does it effect elections? That is the part that is controversial.

As in many issues like this, I prefer to look at things differently.

While a tiny percentage of votes in any given election can be expected to be fraudulent, there are methods - especially given modern technology - to ensure that fraud is kept to an absolute minimum.

So the question I ask is - why isn't that done?  

If people were confident that everything that could be done to prevent fraud was in fact being done, then the issue would go away.

Who benefits from the issue being kept alive?

Questions I do not have the answers to.

Blessings,

-Ed