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

[Running Gator]

54 minutes ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

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

A few points.

First, most people I know are very confident in the actual voting system.  The only people I know that are worried about it all seem to be from the same political persuasion.  

Second, you run into the law of diminishing returns.  How much time, money and resources is is worth to shave off another .01% here and there?   Take my job for example, I am a Survey Statistician who puts out agricultural estimates on weekly, monthly, quarterly and annual basis.  There are multiple sources of data, but the main source of data is the producers who reply to a survey sent to them.   Now, while my estimates tend to be very accurate, if I were to double the number of people I survey they could be even more accurate, but there is the cost of doing so, the time of me dealing with the extra data and the extra burden put on the folks being surveyed.    So, we do our best to find that sweet spot in the middle where we get the best data without exceeding the time and dollar parameters. 

The same thing is done in the area of voter fraud, the question is where is the "sweet spot".  And it is a question I doubt many of us would agree on the answer to.  

Then, for me there is one other issue, and that is when the effort to stop fraud starts to affect those trying to vote legitimately.  The more stringent the measures for fighting fraud, the more people that will have their vote taken from them wrongly.  And once the election is over there is no way to rectify such a thing.   To me it is always best to err on the side of everyone who is allowed being able to vote.  

As to who benefits from keeping it an issue, I would say that the obvious answer is the group that keeps making an issue out of it. 

[Guest shiloh357]

2 hours ago, Running Gator said:

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

It's just how anti-Trumpers think. They are looking under every rock trying to find something to delegitimize trump.  Every attempt to find invalid votes for Trump only ends up uncovering more invalid votes for Hillary.   If the anti-Trumpers could find thousands of votes that were fraudulently cast for Trump, they would trumpet it from the housetops and so would give them ammunition for claiming that Trump's presidency is invalid. 

[Running Gator]

6 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

It's just how anti-Trumpers think. They are looking under every rock trying to find something to delegitimize trump.  Every attempt to find invalid votes for Trump only ends up uncovering more invalid votes for Hillary.   If the anti-Trumpers could find thousands of votes that were fraudulently cast for Trump, they would trumpet it from the housetops and so would give them ammunition for claiming that Trump's presidency is invalid. 

I ask for proof and I get you an opinion about 'anti-Trumpers".  That does not really fit the bill.  So, if you have some proof please provide it, if not then I will take my leave from this discussion with you. 

[SavedByGrace1981]

38 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

A few points.

First, most people I know are very confident in the actual voting system.  The only people I know that are worried about it all seem to be from the same political persuasion.  

Second, you run into the law of diminishing returns.  How much time, money and resources is is worth to shave off another .01% here and there?   Take my job for example, I am a Survey Statistician who puts out agricultural estimates on weekly, monthly, quarterly and annual basis.  There are multiple sources of data, but the main source of data is the producers who reply to a survey sent to them.   Now, while my estimates tend to be very accurate, if I were to double the number of people I survey they could be even more accurate, but there is the cost of doing so, the time of me dealing with the extra data and the extra burden put on the folks being surveyed.    So, we do our best to find that sweet spot in the middle where we get the best data without exceeding the time and dollar parameters. 

The same thing is done in the area of voter fraud, the question is where is the "sweet spot".  And it is a question I doubt many of us would agree on the answer to.  

Then, for me there is one other issue, and that is when the effort to stop fraud starts to affect those trying to vote legitimately.  The more stringent the measures for fighting fraud, the more people that will have their vote taken from them wrongly.  And once the election is over there is no way to rectify such a thing.   To me it is always best to err on the side of everyone who is allowed being able to vote.  

As to who benefits from keeping it an issue, I would say that the obvious answer is the group that keeps making an issue out of it. 

Your points are valid, but then there's this:

Al Franken May Have Won His Senate Seat Through Voter Fraud

Quote

how the integrity of U.S. elections can be maintained when senior policymakers inside the United States Department of Justice, through their actions and instructions to their staffs, do not seem to believe that voter fraud exists or, if it does, that it is not worth investigating.

As much as I disagree with Al Franken, in practical terms probably not much was affected - if indeed his win was fraudulent.  He 'won' that seat against an establishment republican, Norm Coleman.  So while ideologically the makeup of the Senate might have shifted slightly to the left, in practical terms Coleman would have voted with the establishment likely in every case.  He certainly wasn't a conservative.

According to the Heritage Foundation's voter fraud database, these are some additional examples of voter fraud in which convictions were obtained.

1982

An estimated 100,000 fraudulent ballots were cast in a 1982 Chicago election. After a Justice Department investigation, 63 individuals were convicted of voter fraud, including vote buying, impersonation fraud, fictitious voter registrations, phony absentee ballots, and voting by non-citizens.

1994

After an extensive investigation of absentee ballot fraud in a 1994 Greene County, Alabama, election, nine defendants pleaded guilty to voter fraud, and two others were found guilty by a jury. The defendants included Greene County commissioners, officials, and employees; a racing commissioner; a member of the board of education; a Eutaw city councilman; and other community leaders. Among other things, the conspirators used an assembly line to mass produce forged absentee ballots meant to swing elections in favor of preferred candidates.

2003

Allan “Twig” Simmons, an operative for the East Chicago, Indiana, mayor’s campaign, persuaded voters to let him fill out their absentee ballots in exchange for jobs. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three years of probation and 100 hours of community service. Fraud in the 2003 East Chicago mayoral primary was so widespread that the Indiana Supreme Court ultimately overturned the election results and ordered a special mayoral election that resulted in a different winner.

2004

Chad Staton, a worker associated with the NAACP National Voter Fund in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, pleaded guilty to 10 felony counts for filing false voter registrations during the 2004 presidential election in exchange for crack cocaine. Staton filled out more than 100 forms in names such as Mary Poppins, Michael Jackson, Michael Jordan, Dick Tracy, and George Lopez.

2004

Six Democrats from Lincoln County, West Virginia, pleaded guilty to charges of participating in a conspiracy to buy votes dating back to 1990. The indictment charged that the cabal conspired to buy votes in every election held between 1990 and 2004, handing out slates listing preferred candidates and using liquor and cash—typically $20 per vote—to seal the deal. They also laid gravel on roads for supporters and fixed traffic tickets.

2004

East St. Louis, Illinois, precinct committeemen Charles Powell, Sheila Thomas, Jesse Lewis, and Kelvin Ellis, as well as precinct worker Yvette Johnson, were convicted of conspiracy to commit election fraud after participating in vote buying activities in the 2004 election, including submitting budgets that would allow city funds to be used to pay voters to vote for Democrat candidates.

2008

ACORN workers in Seattle, Washington, committed what the secretary of state called, “the worst case of voter registration fraud in the history of the state of Washington.” The group submitted 1,762 fraudulent voter registration forms. The group’s leader, Clifton Mitchell, was convicted of false registrations and served nearly three months in jail. Four other ACORN workers on his team also received jail time, and ACORN was fined $25,000 to cover the cost of the investigation.

2010

Paul Schurick, former campaign manager to Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich, a Republican, was convicted of election fraud after approving a robocall to black voters telling them not to vote because the Democrats had already won the 2010 gubernatorial election. A circuit court judge spared Schurick jail time, opting to sentence him to 30 days’ home detention, four years of probation, and 500 hours of community service.

2012

Robert Monroe, identified by prosecutors as the worst multiple voter in Wisconsin history, pleaded no contest to charges that he voted more than once in 2011 and 2012. Monroe’s record was extensive: he voted twice in the April 2011 Wisconsin Supreme Court election, twice in the 2011 recall election of state Sen. Alberta Darling, and five times in Gov. Scott Walker’s recall election. He also cast an illegal ballot in the August 2012 primary, and voted twice in the 2012 general election.

2012

While running for re-election, Martin, Kentucky, Mayor Ruth Robinson and a cabal of co-conspirators targeted residents living in public housing and in properties Robinson owned, threatening to evict them if they did not sign absentee ballots that Robinson and her family had already filled out. Robinson also targeted disabled residents, and offered to buy the votes of others. She was convicted and sentenced to serve 90 months’ imprisonment.

2014

Rosa Maria Ortega, a non-citizen, was found guilty on two counts of voter fraud for voting in the November 2012 general election and the 2014 Republican primary runoff. Ortega claimed she thought she was a citizen, and blamed her lack of education for the mix-up, but prosecutors pointed out that Ortega had previously indicated on a driver’s license application that she was a non-citizen. A judge sentenced her to eight years’ imprisonment, after which she faces the possibility of deportation.

http://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/heritage-explains/voter-fraud

So yes, fraud DOES exist.

Blessings,

-Ed

 

[Running Gator]

1 minute ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

Your points are valid, but then there's this:

...

So yes, fraud DOES exist.

Blessings,

-Ed

 

Yes it does.  And thanks to your links we know that it is being rooted out and dealt with when found.  

What could we change, on a national level that would have stopped most of these? 

Do you favor doing away with absentee ballots since that seemed to be the crux of much of the fraud?

What laws can we change to stop someone from giving out booze and money in exchange for votes, since it is already illegal? 

What new laws would stop someone from threatening someone in order to get their vote, since it is already illegal? 

I think you get my point, since you posted these examples, how would you stop them from ever happening? 

[SavedByGrace1981]

4 minutes ago, Running Gator said:

Yes it does.  And thanks to your links we know that it is being rooted out and dealt with when found.  

What could we change, on a national level that would have stopped most of these? 

Do you favor doing away with absentee ballots since that seemed to be the crux of much of the fraud?

What laws can we change to stop someone from giving out booze and money in exchange for votes, since it is already illegal? 

What new laws would stop someone from threatening someone in order to get their vote, since it is already illegal? 

I think you get my point, since you posted these examples, how would you stop them from ever happening? 

I'm a states rights kind of guy, so I would leave suspected fraud in local elections to be dealt with by local or state authorities.  The exception to that (and this may already be being done) would be elections for federal offices. (i.e. House and Senate and of course POTUS) 

If they aren't already, they should come under federal law and be prosecuted vigorously.

While the Franken election I cited earlier probably didn't change much, it set a bad precedent.  Someone should have done time in a federal prison.

As a former servicemember, of course I am not for doing away with absentee ballots.  States are lax in how they handle them, though.  That needs to be addressed, perhaps by some federal incentive to the states .  And I'm also in favor of doing away with early voting.  In NY State, the polls open at 6am on election day and close at 9pm.  No one is so busy they cannot take the time to vote at some point during that day (if it is important to them).

Voter registration has become a big deal (in the ongoing effort to divide by race and class).  It is a bogus argument, really.  Photo IDs are required to buy beer and cigarettes - why is it then racist to require same for voting?  I have never understood the logic in that. (except the logic of dividing by race and class)

The simple act of requiring a voter ID (with picture and local address) would go a long way toward satisfying those who are concerned about possible fraud.

Yet every attempt to require voter IDs is usually struck down.  Why is that?  Who benefits?

As far as existing laws go, it just a matter of enforcing them.  There seems at times to be a lack of desire to do so.  If laws are broken, conviction needs to be swift and severe.

Blessings,

-Ed

[Running Gator]

3 hours ago, SavedByGrace1981 said:

I'm a states rights kind of guy, so I would leave suspected fraud in local elections to be dealt with by local or state authorities.  The exception to that (and this may already be being done) would be elections for federal offices. (i.e. House and Senate and of course POTUS) 

If they aren't already, they should come under federal law and be prosecuted vigorously.

I agree with this except even the act of a federal election falls under the jurisdiction of the state and I think the Feds should stay out of it as they do not have the authority to interfere.  

Quote

While the Franken election I cited earlier probably didn't change much, it set a bad precedent.  Someone should have done time in a federal prison.

I am assuming there was never anything proven, just lots of accusations.

Quote

 

As a former servicemember, of course I am not for doing away with absentee ballots.  States are lax in how they handle them, though.  That needs to be addressed, perhaps by some federal incentive to the states .  

 

See above, keep the Feds out of this.  It is not their role, in my opinion.

Quote

And I'm also in favor of doing away with early voting.  In NY State, the polls open at 6am on election day and close at 9pm.  No one is so busy they cannot take the time to vote at some point during that day (if it is important to them).

I actually think early voting helps to stop fraud, not make it worse.  If you have a line an hour or two long waiting to vote then those checking registration will be less careful in an attempt to get the line down.   While it might be true that nobody is so busy they cannot make it between 6 and 9, some are close.  Take my wife for example, she leaves the house at 5:30 to go to work and is lucky to be home by 8 or so.  If her shift fell on an election day it would be hard to make it, not to mention there might be a long line waiting.    

When I was a Shift Manager at WalMart my shift was from 7am-8pm with a 45 minute drive either way.  Voting would have been impossible for me.  

As our country grows and more and more people are voting, I find the idea of a single day of voting less and less practical.  

I am of the mind that voting should be as easy as possible.  

Quote

Voter registration has become a big deal (in the ongoing effort to divide by race and class).  It is a bogus argument, really.  Photo IDs are required to buy beer and cigarettes - why is it then racist to require same for voting?  I have never understood the logic in that. (except the logic of dividing by race and class)

Yes and no.  I do not know if you are drinker, but I like the occasional beer and I have not been asked for my ID for more than a decade...I guess I just look old!  lol

Quote

The simple act of requiring a voter ID (with picture and local address) would go a long way toward satisfying those who are concerned about possible fraud.

The ironic part is that of all the incidents of fraud you listed above, I am not sure this would have stopped a single one. 

Quote

Yet every attempt to require voter IDs is usually struck down.  Why is that?  Who benefits?

Perhaps because it would not impact fraud at all, based upon what we have seen.   Who benefits, the person that is eligible to vote but lost their ID.

Quote

As far as existing laws go, it just a matter of enforcing them.  There seems at times to be a lack of desire to do so.  

Seems to be a common theme in our country. 

Edited September 8, 2017 by Running Gator

[ayin jade]

7 hours ago, Running Gator said:

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

In another thread I showed you mainstream news articles that proved that illegals voted in arizona. So there is indeed proof of it. 

[Running Gator]

14 minutes ago, ayin jade said:

In another thread I showed you mainstream news articles that proved that illegals voted in arizona. So there is indeed proof of it. 

Yes, your MSM news article had the same things they all do, a few random folks here and there voting illegally.  just like all the examples give above.  

[ayin jade]

2 hours ago, Running Gator said:

Yes, your MSM news article had the same things they all do, a few random folks here and there voting illegally.  just like all the examples give above.  

It was still evidence, when you claimed there isnt any.