Rigged Elections and Voter Fraud - how common is fraud? Not very.

[Coyote]

Here's an interesting comparison....brought about by the school shooting analogy earlier.

Voting is a right.
So is gun ownership.

Think about that in terms of adding layers of laws that restrict those rights.

We have layers of laws related to guns, including background checks to verify eligibility, why not for voting?

We have them for voting.

As much as we need for a process that doesn't kill people.

Yeah, they just take peoples word, and then have no meaningful ways to verify they told the truth. Once again, why is it only you regressives that object to voting eligibility verification systems? What are you trying to keep hidden?

You want to know why?

It's because of this: what is WORSE to you?

Taking the risk that an ineligible voter votes?
or
Taking the risk that an eligible voter is disenfranchised?

It's kind of the same way I see the death penalty: what is worse?
Taking the risk that a convicted criminal sentenced to life gets away and kills someone?
or
Taking the risk that an innocent man is sentanced to die?

It's how those questions are answered that define the difference between regressives like you and regressives like me.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Voter fraud is rampant. Everybody knows it. Kindly stop asserting a lie as if every person in the world doesn't recognize it's a lie.

Voter 'fraud' is exceedingly rare.

It's a myth contrived by Republicans to assuage their anger when they lose elections.

 

[OKTexas]

Tell ya what, let's require proof of citizenship and proper ID for one election and see what happens to the numbers showing up to vote. Deal?

Quite a few states have had Voter ID for some time now. And it has not stopped the types of fraud which occur. I've been pointing it out to you tards for a long time. Years.

But they still aren't allowed to verify citizenship for voter registration. The system is designed to encourage fraud.

It seems to have worked just fine for years and years...until suddenly someone decided there was fraud and simultaneously came up with a stack of new regulations that disproportionatly affected those who tend to vote for the opposition.

I still haven't figured out how cutting early voting, reducing voting hours and stopping Sunday voting prevents fraud.

Citizenship is the first and most important requirement to vote, only an idiot wouldn't think it makes sense to verify it to register to vote. ID is the only way to verify the person casting the vote is the one registered. It's common sense to require both. I know, you regressives don't believe common sense exist, unless it's a regressive talking point in the gun debate.

States are also strapped for cash, why pay poll workers and rent polling space for days that are really unneeded? I haven't had to stand in a line to vote here in TX at all, which tells me they could shorten the early voting period easily by a couple of days and not hurt anyone.

 

[WelfareQueen]

We have Donald Trump and his zealots already paving the way for allegations of mass fraud and rigged elections.

Based on what evidence? Almost none.

Everytime Trump drops in the polls, he pulls out the fraud card. It's never his own doing -

• the Media is against him (never mind the fact that they never pressed him very hard on his lies);

• the Clintons are rigging it (never mind the fact that there is no evidence of that happening and rigging a national election is next to impossible in this country).

• Voter fraud - this, based on a handful of allegations, a lack of actual evidence, and over the years precious few convictions.

So somehow all this - not the man's character, not his lack of any sort of filter, not his policies or actions - are losing him the election. It's utter madness and logic


Comprehensive 10-Year Voter Fraud Study Found: It’s a GOP Myth

These warnings are not new and not supported by evidence; they defy numerous studies that have found that voter fraud is minimal.

They also invite a question: If the election is rigged, who is doing the rigging?

Presidential elections are conducted on a state-by-state basis, not nationally. And in most of the states seen as presidential battlegrounds, the chief elections officers are Republicans — most directly accountable to their state's voters.

• In Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio and Utah, the chief elections officer of the state is a Republican, elected by voters of the state. Most are secretary of state; Utah’s lieutenant governor oversees elections there.
• In Florida, the secretary of state is appointed by the state’s Republican governor, Rick Scott — a Trump supporter.
• In North Carolina, the state board of elections has five members, appointed by the governor — currently a Republican. Its current chairman and three out of five members are Republicans.

There are states with some measure of Democratic control over the process.

• In Minnesota and Missouri, the chief elections officer is a Democrat elected by the voters of the state.
• Pennsylvania’s secretary of state was appointed by the state’s Democratic governor.
• New Hampshire’s longtime secretary of state was once a Democrat, but was reelected to his post by the Republican-led state legislature.
• Virginia’s Democratic governor, Terry McAuliffe — a longtime Clinton ally — appointed each member of that state’s three-person elections board.

Comprehensive 10-Year Voter Fraud Study Found: It’s a GOP Myth

...The Washington Post’s “Wonkblog” offers a summary of studies and investigations that have examined the issue of voter fraud. These studies have been conducted by academic researchers, news organizations, and state governments. They all produced similar results: The massive “in person” voter fraud that Republicans claim is helping Democrats steal elections simply does not exist.


Out of all of the research cited in the story, the investigations conducted by various states are the most interesting, because they were conducted by states that are currently controlled by Republicans. For example, the Kansas secretary of state took a look at 84 million votes cast in 22 states, trying to find duplicate registrations. The result? They referred 14 cases to prosecutors. Fourteen. Out of 84 million votes.



North Carolina also participated in the multi-state voter “cross check” program. Their survey of 28 states turned up 765 people with the same names, birth dates, and whose Social Security numbers ended with the same four digits, who voted in North Carolina and another state, according to the Charlotte News and Observer. There is no word on how many, if any, of those people will be prosecuted. Even if all 765 were guilty of voter fraud, it is still a tiny percentage of the nearly seven million votes cast in North Carolina in 2012, and certainly not enough to sway the outcome of an election.


Iowa’s Republican secretary of state Matt Schultz spent two years, and over a quarter of a million taxpayer dollars, to find 117 possibly fraudulent votes, leading to only six convictions. Of those who were convicted, three were felons who believed that their right to vote had been restored.


Even though voter fraud does not exist on the level that Republicans claim that it does, there are instances of possible voter fraud in almost every election. Here are a few examples:

• Last year in Virginia, Adam Ward pleaded guilty to faking hundreds of signatures that were needed for Newt Gingrich to be eligible to appear on the state’s primary election ballot.
• In 2012, Charlie White, Indiana’s Republican secretary of state was convicted of six felony counts of voter fraud.
• Also in 2012, four staffers of Michigan Republican congressman Thaddeus McCotter were found guilty of forging over 1500 signatures in an attempt to qualify the congressman for the ballot.
• Wisconsin Tea Partier and Scott Walker supporter Robert Monroe has been charged with casting multiple ballots in several elections.

NO ONE claims it doesn't occur (despite misleading claims by some) - but it's very uncommon. Why is it uncommon? It's not a very successful way of throwing an election. People will always find examples to throw in as "proof" but so what? A handful out of millions of votes? And that is sufficient excuse to try and undermine our entire electoral integrity with this infectious madness?

Hell, the Democrats could have flown that flag with Gore vs Bush, called for violence and armed poll watchers. But this madness is new and the source is Trump. Everyone is "against him" - everyone is "biased" - the Dems, the media, the Republican establishment. Maybe it's not "Them" - maybe it's Trump himself who causing people to turn away. Ever think of that?

Vote fraud has been a major factor in multiple Presidential elections. Look up Benjamin Harrison for starters.

"Vote" fraud or "Voter" fraud? There's a difference between electoral fraud - ie ballot stuffing etc and voter fraud claiming to be a voter you aren't.

Fraud is fraud. Nixon felt like he lost the election is 1960 due to massive voter fraud in Illinois. Many Democrat partisans felt Bush won in 2000 due to fraud.

To suggest fraud in elections does not occur is more than a little naive. And yes....there is plenty of evidence fraud takes place in many elections. The question is how much which is very....very difficult to prove conclusively.

I just finished an exhaustive history of Presidential elections and you would probably be amazed at how often rampant voter fraud has happened in our history.

 

[Coyote]

Tell ya what, let's require proof of citizenship and proper ID for one election and see what happens to the numbers showing up to vote. Deal?

Quite a few states have had Voter ID for some time now. And it has not stopped the types of fraud which occur. I've been pointing it out to you tards for a long time. Years.

But they still aren't allowed to verify citizenship for voter registration. The system is designed to encourage fraud.

It seems to have worked just fine for years and years...until suddenly someone decided there was fraud and simultaneously came up with a stack of new regulations that disproportionatly affected those who tend to vote for the opposition.

I still haven't figured out how cutting early voting, reducing voting hours and stopping Sunday voting prevents fraud.

Citizen is the first and most important requirement to vote, only an idiot wouldn't think it makes sense to verify it to register to vote. ID is the only way to verify the person casting the vote is the one registered. It's common sense to require both. I know, you regressives don't believe common sense exist, unless it's a regressive talking point in the gun debate.

Ok...here is a question for you regressives - why do you promote legislation that prevents certain citizens from voting?

States are also strapped for cash, why pay poll workers and rent polling space for days that are really unneeded? I haven't had to stand in a line to vote here in TX at all, which tells me they could shorten the early voting period easily by a couple of days and not hurt anyone.

Why? Because they are needed, though it's mostly by those who tend to vote democrat.

Why are you so keen to disenfranchise them? It's convenient to claim it's about cost. But voting is a fundamental right in a democratic system.

 

[bravoactual]

We have Donald Trump and his zealots already paving the way for allegations of mass fraud and rigged elections.

Based on what evidence? Almost none.

Everytime Trump drops in the polls, he pulls out the fraud card. It's never his own doing -

• the Media is against him (never mind the fact that they never pressed him very hard on his lies);

• the Clintons are rigging it (never mind the fact that there is no evidence of that happening and rigging a national election is next to impossible in this country).

• Voter fraud - this, based on a handful of allegations, a lack of actual evidence, and over the years precious few convictions.

So somehow all this - not the man's character, not his lack of any sort of filter, not his policies or actions - are losing him the election. It's utter madness and logic


Comprehensive 10-Year Voter Fraud Study Found: It’s a GOP Myth

These warnings are not new and not supported by evidence; they defy numerous studies that have found that voter fraud is minimal.

They also invite a question: If the election is rigged, who is doing the rigging?

Presidential elections are conducted on a state-by-state basis, not nationally. And in most of the states seen as presidential battlegrounds, the chief elections officers are Republicans — most directly accountable to their state's voters.

• In Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio and Utah, the chief elections officer of the state is a Republican, elected by voters of the state. Most are secretary of state; Utah’s lieutenant governor oversees elections there.
• In Florida, the secretary of state is appointed by the state’s Republican governor, Rick Scott — a Trump supporter.
• In North Carolina, the state board of elections has five members, appointed by the governor — currently a Republican. Its current chairman and three out of five members are Republicans.

There are states with some measure of Democratic control over the process.

• In Minnesota and Missouri, the chief elections officer is a Democrat elected by the voters of the state.
• Pennsylvania’s secretary of state was appointed by the state’s Democratic governor.
• New Hampshire’s longtime secretary of state was once a Democrat, but was reelected to his post by the Republican-led state legislature.
• Virginia’s Democratic governor, Terry McAuliffe — a longtime Clinton ally — appointed each member of that state’s three-person elections board.

Comprehensive 10-Year Voter Fraud Study Found: It’s a GOP Myth

...The Washington Post’s “Wonkblog” offers a summary of studies and investigations that have examined the issue of voter fraud. These studies have been conducted by academic researchers, news organizations, and state governments. They all produced similar results: The massive “in person” voter fraud that Republicans claim is helping Democrats steal elections simply does not exist.


Out of all of the research cited in the story, the investigations conducted by various states are the most interesting, because they were conducted by states that are currently controlled by Republicans. For example, the Kansas secretary of state took a look at 84 million votes cast in 22 states, trying to find duplicate registrations. The result? They referred 14 cases to prosecutors. Fourteen. Out of 84 million votes.



North Carolina also participated in the multi-state voter “cross check” program. Their survey of 28 states turned up 765 people with the same names, birth dates, and whose Social Security numbers ended with the same four digits, who voted in North Carolina and another state, according to the Charlotte News and Observer. There is no word on how many, if any, of those people will be prosecuted. Even if all 765 were guilty of voter fraud, it is still a tiny percentage of the nearly seven million votes cast in North Carolina in 2012, and certainly not enough to sway the outcome of an election.


Iowa’s Republican secretary of state Matt Schultz spent two years, and over a quarter of a million taxpayer dollars, to find 117 possibly fraudulent votes, leading to only six convictions. Of those who were convicted, three were felons who believed that their right to vote had been restored.


Even though voter fraud does not exist on the level that Republicans claim that it does, there are instances of possible voter fraud in almost every election. Here are a few examples:

• Last year in Virginia, Adam Ward pleaded guilty to faking hundreds of signatures that were needed for Newt Gingrich to be eligible to appear on the state’s primary election ballot.
• In 2012, Charlie White, Indiana’s Republican secretary of state was convicted of six felony counts of voter fraud.
• Also in 2012, four staffers of Michigan Republican congressman Thaddeus McCotter were found guilty of forging over 1500 signatures in an attempt to qualify the congressman for the ballot.
• Wisconsin Tea Partier and Scott Walker supporter Robert Monroe has been charged with casting multiple ballots in several elections.

NO ONE claims it doesn't occur (despite misleading claims by some) - but it's very uncommon. Why is it uncommon? It's not a very successful way of throwing an election. People will always find examples to throw in as "proof" but so what? A handful out of millions of votes? And that is sufficient excuse to try and undermine our entire electoral integrity with this infectious madness?

Hell, the Democrats could have flown that flag with Gore vs Bush, called for violence and armed poll watchers. But this madness is new and the source is Trump. Everyone is "against him" - everyone is "biased" - the Dems, the media, the Republican establishment. Maybe it's not "Them" - maybe it's Trump himself who causing people to turn away. Ever think of that?

Since the year 2000 until 2016, in All Elections Held Nationwide, Federal, State and Local Race combined there have been a total of over One Billion (1,000,000,000) Votes cast. Of that One Billion Votes cast a total of Thirty-One (31) cases of documented Voter Fraud were found.

31-Cases out of over 1,000,000,000 Votes Cast.

Oh Henny Penny The Sky Is Falling.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You want to know why?

It's because of this: what is WORSE to you?

Taking the risk that an ineligible voter votes?
or
Taking the risk that an eligible voter is disenfranchised?

Or just one more: what about eligible voters who have their vote neutralized by a person who isn't supposed to be voting?

One rule that applies to all, big, small, short, fat, black, white, gay, straight, anything in between, old, young, religious, and many others. How can that not be fair?

 

[Coyote]

We have Donald Trump and his zealots already paving the way for allegations of mass fraud and rigged elections.

Based on what evidence? Almost none.

Everytime Trump drops in the polls, he pulls out the fraud card. It's never his own doing -

• the Media is against him (never mind the fact that they never pressed him very hard on his lies);

• the Clintons are rigging it (never mind the fact that there is no evidence of that happening and rigging a national election is next to impossible in this country).

• Voter fraud - this, based on a handful of allegations, a lack of actual evidence, and over the years precious few convictions.

So somehow all this - not the man's character, not his lack of any sort of filter, not his policies or actions - are losing him the election. It's utter madness and logic


Comprehensive 10-Year Voter Fraud Study Found: It’s a GOP Myth

These warnings are not new and not supported by evidence; they defy numerous studies that have found that voter fraud is minimal.

They also invite a question: If the election is rigged, who is doing the rigging?

Presidential elections are conducted on a state-by-state basis, not nationally. And in most of the states seen as presidential battlegrounds, the chief elections officers are Republicans — most directly accountable to their state's voters.

• In Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio and Utah, the chief elections officer of the state is a Republican, elected by voters of the state. Most are secretary of state; Utah’s lieutenant governor oversees elections there.
• In Florida, the secretary of state is appointed by the state’s Republican governor, Rick Scott — a Trump supporter.
• In North Carolina, the state board of elections has five members, appointed by the governor — currently a Republican. Its current chairman and three out of five members are Republicans.

There are states with some measure of Democratic control over the process.

• In Minnesota and Missouri, the chief elections officer is a Democrat elected by the voters of the state.
• Pennsylvania’s secretary of state was appointed by the state’s Democratic governor.
• New Hampshire’s longtime secretary of state was once a Democrat, but was reelected to his post by the Republican-led state legislature.
• Virginia’s Democratic governor, Terry McAuliffe — a longtime Clinton ally — appointed each member of that state’s three-person elections board.

Comprehensive 10-Year Voter Fraud Study Found: It’s a GOP Myth

...The Washington Post’s “Wonkblog” offers a summary of studies and investigations that have examined the issue of voter fraud. These studies have been conducted by academic researchers, news organizations, and state governments. They all produced similar results: The massive “in person” voter fraud that Republicans claim is helping Democrats steal elections simply does not exist.


Out of all of the research cited in the story, the investigations conducted by various states are the most interesting, because they were conducted by states that are currently controlled by Republicans. For example, the Kansas secretary of state took a look at 84 million votes cast in 22 states, trying to find duplicate registrations. The result? They referred 14 cases to prosecutors. Fourteen. Out of 84 million votes.



North Carolina also participated in the multi-state voter “cross check” program. Their survey of 28 states turned up 765 people with the same names, birth dates, and whose Social Security numbers ended with the same four digits, who voted in North Carolina and another state, according to the Charlotte News and Observer. There is no word on how many, if any, of those people will be prosecuted. Even if all 765 were guilty of voter fraud, it is still a tiny percentage of the nearly seven million votes cast in North Carolina in 2012, and certainly not enough to sway the outcome of an election.


Iowa’s Republican secretary of state Matt Schultz spent two years, and over a quarter of a million taxpayer dollars, to find 117 possibly fraudulent votes, leading to only six convictions. Of those who were convicted, three were felons who believed that their right to vote had been restored.


Even though voter fraud does not exist on the level that Republicans claim that it does, there are instances of possible voter fraud in almost every election. Here are a few examples:

• Last year in Virginia, Adam Ward pleaded guilty to faking hundreds of signatures that were needed for Newt Gingrich to be eligible to appear on the state’s primary election ballot.
• In 2012, Charlie White, Indiana’s Republican secretary of state was convicted of six felony counts of voter fraud.
• Also in 2012, four staffers of Michigan Republican congressman Thaddeus McCotter were found guilty of forging over 1500 signatures in an attempt to qualify the congressman for the ballot.
• Wisconsin Tea Partier and Scott Walker supporter Robert Monroe has been charged with casting multiple ballots in several elections.

NO ONE claims it doesn't occur (despite misleading claims by some) - but it's very uncommon. Why is it uncommon? It's not a very successful way of throwing an election. People will always find examples to throw in as "proof" but so what? A handful out of millions of votes? And that is sufficient excuse to try and undermine our entire electoral integrity with this infectious madness?

Hell, the Democrats could have flown that flag with Gore vs Bush, called for violence and armed poll watchers. But this madness is new and the source is Trump. Everyone is "against him" - everyone is "biased" - the Dems, the media, the Republican establishment. Maybe it's not "Them" - maybe it's Trump himself who causing people to turn away. Ever think of that?

Vote fraud has been a major factor in multiple Presidential elections. Look up Benjamin Harrison for starters.

"Vote" fraud or "Voter" fraud? There's a difference between electoral fraud - ie ballot stuffing etc and voter fraud claiming to be a voter you aren't.

Fraud is fraud. Nixon felt like he lost the election is 1960 due to massive voter fraud in Illinois. Many Democrat partisans felt Bush won in 2000 due to fraud.

To suggest fraud in elections does not occur is more than a little naive. And yes....there is plenty of evidence fraud takes place in many elections. The question is how much which is very....very difficult to prove conclusively.

I just finished an exhaustive history of Presidential elections and you would probably be amazed at how often rampant voter fraud has happened in our history.

No one is saying it does not occur. No one.

The other thing is - is VOTER fraud rampant? Or ELECTORAL fraud? That's the thing. Voter fraud is a very inefficient means of trying to swing an election and likely not to work. Most fraud occurs in other ways.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Since the year 2000 until 2016, in All Elections Held Nationwide, Federal, State and Local Race combined there have been a total of over One Billion (1,000,000,000) Votes cast. Of that One Billion Votes cast a total of Thirty-One (31) cases of documented Voter Fraud were found.

31-Cases out of over 1,000,000,000 Votes Cast.

Oh Henny Penny The Sky Is Falling.

Yes, that's what the liberals tell you to believe. Again, I have an entire folder of voter fraud stories. Are they all wrong?

 

[Coyote]

You want to know why?

It's because of this: what is WORSE to you?

Taking the risk that an ineligible voter votes?
or
Taking the risk that an eligible voter is disenfranchised?

Or just one more: what about eligible voters who have their vote neutralized by a person who isn't supposed to be voting?

One rule that applies to all, big, small, short, fat, black, white, gay, straight, anything in between, old, young, religious, and many others. How can that not be fair?

How often has that happened?

 

[OKTexas]

Here's an interesting comparison....brought about by the school shooting analogy earlier.

Voting is a right.
So is gun ownership.

Think about that in terms of adding layers of laws that restrict those rights.

We have layers of laws related to guns, including background checks to verify eligibility, why not for voting?

We have them for voting.

As much as we need for a process that doesn't kill people.

Yeah, they just take peoples word, and then have no meaningful ways to verify they told the truth. Once again, why is it only you regressives that object to voting eligibility verification systems? What are you trying to keep hidden?

You want to know why?

It's because of this: what is WORSE to you?

Taking the risk that an ineligible voter votes?
or
Taking the risk that an eligible voter is disenfranchised?

It's kind of the same way I see the death penalty: what is worse?
Taking the risk that a convicted criminal sentenced to life gets away and kills someone?
or
Taking the risk that an innocent man is sentanced to die?

It's how those questions are answered that define the difference between regressives like you and regressives like me.

With technology today we can do both, make sure an eligible voter gets to vote and make sure that vote is not canceled by someone who is ineligible.

As for the death penalty, we have safeguards in place to protect those wrongly convicted. We don't get do overs on elections that are decided by fraudulent votes.

 

[Coyote]

Since the year 2000 until 2016, in All Elections Held Nationwide, Federal, State and Local Race combined there have been a total of over One Billion (1,000,000,000) Votes cast. Of that One Billion Votes cast a total of Thirty-One (31) cases of documented Voter Fraud were found.

31-Cases out of over 1,000,000,000 Votes Cast.

Oh Henny Penny The Sky Is Falling.

Yes, that's what the liberals tell you to believe. Again, I have an entire folder of voter fraud stories. Are they all wrong?

Except you really don't - at least going by the links you provided. You have a folder full of hypothetical situations and conjecture, situations where voter ROLLS have not been cleaned up, cases of ELECTORAL fraud - but damn few cases of actual voter fraud.

 

[Coyote]

Since the year 2000 until 2016, in All Elections Held Nationwide, Federal, State and Local Race combined there have been a total of over One Billion (1,000,000,000) Votes cast. Of that One Billion Votes cast a total of Thirty-One (31) cases of documented Voter Fraud were found.

31-Cases out of over 1,000,000,000 Votes Cast.

Oh Henny Penny The Sky Is Falling.

Yes, that's what the liberals tell you to believe. Again, I have an entire folder of voter fraud stories. Are they all wrong?

Except you really don't - at least going by the links you provided. You have a folder full of hypothetical situations and conjecture, situations where voter ROLLS have not been cleaned up, cases of ELECTORAL fraud - but damn few cases of actual voter fraud.

 

[WelfareQueen]

We have Donald Trump and his zealots already paving the way for allegations of mass fraud and rigged elections.

Based on what evidence? Almost none.

Everytime Trump drops in the polls, he pulls out the fraud card. It's never his own doing -

• the Media is against him (never mind the fact that they never pressed him very hard on his lies);

• the Clintons are rigging it (never mind the fact that there is no evidence of that happening and rigging a national election is next to impossible in this country).

• Voter fraud - this, based on a handful of allegations, a lack of actual evidence, and over the years precious few convictions.

So somehow all this - not the man's character, not his lack of any sort of filter, not his policies or actions - are losing him the election. It's utter madness and logic


Comprehensive 10-Year Voter Fraud Study Found: It’s a GOP Myth

These warnings are not new and not supported by evidence; they defy numerous studies that have found that voter fraud is minimal.

They also invite a question: If the election is rigged, who is doing the rigging?

Presidential elections are conducted on a state-by-state basis, not nationally. And in most of the states seen as presidential battlegrounds, the chief elections officers are Republicans — most directly accountable to their state's voters.

• In Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio and Utah, the chief elections officer of the state is a Republican, elected by voters of the state. Most are secretary of state; Utah’s lieutenant governor oversees elections there.
• In Florida, the secretary of state is appointed by the state’s Republican governor, Rick Scott — a Trump supporter.
• In North Carolina, the state board of elections has five members, appointed by the governor — currently a Republican. Its current chairman and three out of five members are Republicans.

There are states with some measure of Democratic control over the process.

• In Minnesota and Missouri, the chief elections officer is a Democrat elected by the voters of the state.
• Pennsylvania’s secretary of state was appointed by the state’s Democratic governor.
• New Hampshire’s longtime secretary of state was once a Democrat, but was reelected to his post by the Republican-led state legislature.
• Virginia’s Democratic governor, Terry McAuliffe — a longtime Clinton ally — appointed each member of that state’s three-person elections board.

Comprehensive 10-Year Voter Fraud Study Found: It’s a GOP Myth

...The Washington Post’s “Wonkblog” offers a summary of studies and investigations that have examined the issue of voter fraud. These studies have been conducted by academic researchers, news organizations, and state governments. They all produced similar results: The massive “in person” voter fraud that Republicans claim is helping Democrats steal elections simply does not exist.


Out of all of the research cited in the story, the investigations conducted by various states are the most interesting, because they were conducted by states that are currently controlled by Republicans. For example, the Kansas secretary of state took a look at 84 million votes cast in 22 states, trying to find duplicate registrations. The result? They referred 14 cases to prosecutors. Fourteen. Out of 84 million votes.



North Carolina also participated in the multi-state voter “cross check” program. Their survey of 28 states turned up 765 people with the same names, birth dates, and whose Social Security numbers ended with the same four digits, who voted in North Carolina and another state, according to the Charlotte News and Observer. There is no word on how many, if any, of those people will be prosecuted. Even if all 765 were guilty of voter fraud, it is still a tiny percentage of the nearly seven million votes cast in North Carolina in 2012, and certainly not enough to sway the outcome of an election.


Iowa’s Republican secretary of state Matt Schultz spent two years, and over a quarter of a million taxpayer dollars, to find 117 possibly fraudulent votes, leading to only six convictions. Of those who were convicted, three were felons who believed that their right to vote had been restored.


Even though voter fraud does not exist on the level that Republicans claim that it does, there are instances of possible voter fraud in almost every election. Here are a few examples:

• Last year in Virginia, Adam Ward pleaded guilty to faking hundreds of signatures that were needed for Newt Gingrich to be eligible to appear on the state’s primary election ballot.
• In 2012, Charlie White, Indiana’s Republican secretary of state was convicted of six felony counts of voter fraud.
• Also in 2012, four staffers of Michigan Republican congressman Thaddeus McCotter were found guilty of forging over 1500 signatures in an attempt to qualify the congressman for the ballot.
• Wisconsin Tea Partier and Scott Walker supporter Robert Monroe has been charged with casting multiple ballots in several elections.

NO ONE claims it doesn't occur (despite misleading claims by some) - but it's very uncommon. Why is it uncommon? It's not a very successful way of throwing an election. People will always find examples to throw in as "proof" but so what? A handful out of millions of votes? And that is sufficient excuse to try and undermine our entire electoral integrity with this infectious madness?

Hell, the Democrats could have flown that flag with Gore vs Bush, called for violence and armed poll watchers. But this madness is new and the source is Trump. Everyone is "against him" - everyone is "biased" - the Dems, the media, the Republican establishment. Maybe it's not "Them" - maybe it's Trump himself who causing people to turn away. Ever think of that?

Vote fraud has been a major factor in multiple Presidential elections. Look up Benjamin Harrison for starters.

"Vote" fraud or "Voter" fraud? There's a difference between electoral fraud - ie ballot stuffing etc and voter fraud claiming to be a voter you aren't.

Fraud is fraud. Nixon felt like he lost the election is 1960 due to massive voter fraud in Illinois. Many Democrat partisans felt Bush won in 2000 due to fraud.

To suggest fraud in elections does not occur is more than a little naive. And yes....there is plenty of evidence fraud takes place in many elections. The question is how much which is very....very difficult to prove conclusively.

I just finished an exhaustive history of Presidential elections and you would probably be amazed at how often rampant voter fraud has happened in our history.

No one is saying it does not occur. No one.

The other thing is - is VOTER fraud rampant? Or ELECTORAL fraud? That's the thing. Voter fraud is a very inefficient means of trying to swing an election and likely not to work. Most fraud occurs in other ways.

From Wiki regarding the 1888 election where voters were paid a certain way to vote in a key swing state. I saw this myself in Virginia in the 1992 election where street bums where given packs of cigarettes to vote for Bill Clinton (I was in grad school at the time doing community outreach for the homeless). The shit happens all the time.


Blocks of Five
William Wade Dudley (1842–1909), an Indianapolis lawyer, was a tireless campaigner and prosecutor of Democratic election frauds. In 1888, Benjamin Harrison made Dudley Treasurer of the Republican National Committee. The campaign was the most intense in decades, with Indiana dead even. Although the National Committee had no business meddling in state politics, Dudley wrote a circular letter to Indiana's county chairmen, telling them to "divide the floaters into Blocks of Five, and put a trusted man with the necessary funds in charge of these five, and make them responsible that none get away and that all vote our ticket." Dudley promised adequate funding. His pre-emptive strike backfired when Democrats obtained the letter and distributed hundreds of thousands of copies nationwide in the last days of the campaign. Given Dudley's unsavory reputation, few people believed his denials. A few thousand "floaters" did exist in Indiana—men who would sell their vote for $2. They always divided 50-50 (or perhaps, $5,000-$5,000) and had no visible impact on the vote. The attack on "blocks of five" with the suggestion that pious General Harrison was trying to buy the election did enliven the Democratic campaign, and it stimulated the nationwide movement to replace ballots printed and distributed by the parties with secret ballots.[10]

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Voter 'fraud' is a myth to the extent that no election outcome has been 'changed' as a result of 'fraud.'

Rare, isolated, anecdotal occurrences of 'fraud' happen so infrequently that such events in no way justify un-Constitutional measures that place an undue burden on the right to vote, voter 'ID' laws being one example.

So what's unconstitutional about it? Where does it say in the Constitution that voting should be void of regulations?

 

[Coyote]

Here's an interesting comparison....brought about by the school shooting analogy earlier.

Voting is a right.
So is gun ownership.

Think about that in terms of adding layers of laws that restrict those rights.

We have layers of laws related to guns, including background checks to verify eligibility, why not for voting?

We have them for voting.

As much as we need for a process that doesn't kill people.

Yeah, they just take peoples word, and then have no meaningful ways to verify they told the truth. Once again, why is it only you regressives that object to voting eligibility verification systems? What are you trying to keep hidden?

You want to know why?

It's because of this: what is WORSE to you?

Taking the risk that an ineligible voter votes?
or
Taking the risk that an eligible voter is disenfranchised?

It's kind of the same way I see the death penalty: what is worse?
Taking the risk that a convicted criminal sentenced to life gets away and kills someone?
or
Taking the risk that an innocent man is sentanced to die?

It's how those questions are answered that define the difference between regressives like you and regressives like me.

With technology today we can do both, make sure an eligible voter gets to vote and make sure that vote is not canceled by someone who is ineligible.

As for the death penalty, we have safeguards in place to protect those wrongly convicted. We don't get do overs on elections that are decided by fraudulent votes.

We really don't. Eligible voters may not be able to come up with the right documentation. People on death row are found innocent all the time due to new methods of evaluatiing evidence. How many do you think have been killed prior to that?

We don't get do-overs in elections decided by fraudulant votes.
We don't get do-overs in elections decided by the removal of disenfranchised voters either.
And dead people don't come back to life.

Add to that - voter fraud, of the kind that ID's would prevent is rare and inefficient and unlikely to have any effect on an election.

 

[Coyote]

Here's an interesting comparison....brought about by the school shooting analogy earlier.

Voting is a right.
So is gun ownership.

Think about that in terms of adding layers of laws that restrict those rights.

We have layers of laws related to guns, including background checks to verify eligibility, why not for voting?

We have them for voting.

As much as we need for a process that doesn't kill people.

Yeah, they just take peoples word, and then have no meaningful ways to verify they told the truth. Once again, why is it only you regressives that object to voting eligibility verification systems? What are you trying to keep hidden?

You want to know why?

It's because of this: what is WORSE to you?

Taking the risk that an ineligible voter votes?
or
Taking the risk that an eligible voter is disenfranchised?

It's kind of the same way I see the death penalty: what is worse?
Taking the risk that a convicted criminal sentenced to life gets away and kills someone?
or
Taking the risk that an innocent man is sentanced to die?

It's how those questions are answered that define the difference between regressives like you and regressives like me.

With technology today we can do both, make sure an eligible voter gets to vote and make sure that vote is not canceled by someone who is ineligible.

As for the death penalty, we have safeguards in place to protect those wrongly convicted. We don't get do overs on elections that are decided by fraudulent votes.

We really don't. Eligible voters may not be able to come up with the right documentation. People on death row are found innocent all the time due to new methods of evaluatiing evidence. How many do you think have been killed prior to that?

We don't get do-overs in elections decided by fraudulant votes.
We don't get do-overs in elections decided by the removal of disenfranchised voters either.
And dead people don't come back to life.

Add to that - voter fraud, of the kind that ID's would prevent is rare and inefficient and unlikely to have any effect on an election.

 

[OKTexas]

Tell ya what, let's require proof of citizenship and proper ID for one election and see what happens to the numbers showing up to vote. Deal?

Quite a few states have had Voter ID for some time now. And it has not stopped the types of fraud which occur. I've been pointing it out to you tards for a long time. Years.

But they still aren't allowed to verify citizenship for voter registration. The system is designed to encourage fraud.

It seems to have worked just fine for years and years...until suddenly someone decided there was fraud and simultaneously came up with a stack of new regulations that disproportionatly affected those who tend to vote for the opposition.

I still haven't figured out how cutting early voting, reducing voting hours and stopping Sunday voting prevents fraud.

Citizen is the first and most important requirement to vote, only an idiot wouldn't think it makes sense to verify it to register to vote. ID is the only way to verify the person casting the vote is the one registered. It's common sense to require both. I know, you regressives don't believe common sense exist, unless it's a regressive talking point in the gun debate.

Ok...here is a question for you regressives - why do you promote legislation that prevents certain citizens from voting?

States are also strapped for cash, why pay poll workers and rent polling space for days that are really unneeded? I haven't had to stand in a line to vote here in TX at all, which tells me they could shorten the early voting period easily by a couple of days and not hurt anyone.

Why? Because they are needed, though it's mostly by those who tend to vote democrat.

Why are you so keen to disenfranchise them? It's convenient to claim it's about cost. But voting is a fundamental right in a democratic system.

Give me an example of a law that only applies to certain citizens.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Except you really don't - at least going by the links you provided. You have a folder full of hypothetical situations and conjecture, situations where voter ROLLS have not been cleaned up, cases of ELECTORAL fraud - but damn few cases of actual voter fraud.

It's all voter fraud. That's the point. We have to start doing something to eliminate it. And mind you, these are only the cases we know about. What about all the cases we don't know about because frauds were able to work this fragile system we currently have?

This is the exact same as my speeders on the highway scenario. If there are no police to bust the speeders, can the city claim there is no speeding problem on that highway?

 

[Coyote]

We have Donald Trump and his zealots already paving the way for allegations of mass fraud and rigged elections.

Based on what evidence? Almost none.

Everytime Trump drops in the polls, he pulls out the fraud card. It's never his own doing -

• the Media is against him (never mind the fact that they never pressed him very hard on his lies);

• the Clintons are rigging it (never mind the fact that there is no evidence of that happening and rigging a national election is next to impossible in this country).

• Voter fraud - this, based on a handful of allegations, a lack of actual evidence, and over the years precious few convictions.

So somehow all this - not the man's character, not his lack of any sort of filter, not his policies or actions - are losing him the election. It's utter madness and logic


Comprehensive 10-Year Voter Fraud Study Found: It’s a GOP Myth

These warnings are not new and not supported by evidence; they defy numerous studies that have found that voter fraud is minimal.

They also invite a question: If the election is rigged, who is doing the rigging?

Presidential elections are conducted on a state-by-state basis, not nationally. And in most of the states seen as presidential battlegrounds, the chief elections officers are Republicans — most directly accountable to their state's voters.

• In Arizona, Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio and Utah, the chief elections officer of the state is a Republican, elected by voters of the state. Most are secretary of state; Utah’s lieutenant governor oversees elections there.
• In Florida, the secretary of state is appointed by the state’s Republican governor, Rick Scott — a Trump supporter.
• In North Carolina, the state board of elections has five members, appointed by the governor — currently a Republican. Its current chairman and three out of five members are Republicans.

There are states with some measure of Democratic control over the process.

• In Minnesota and Missouri, the chief elections officer is a Democrat elected by the voters of the state.
• Pennsylvania’s secretary of state was appointed by the state’s Democratic governor.
• New Hampshire’s longtime secretary of state was once a Democrat, but was reelected to his post by the Republican-led state legislature.
• Virginia’s Democratic governor, Terry McAuliffe — a longtime Clinton ally — appointed each member of that state’s three-person elections board.

Comprehensive 10-Year Voter Fraud Study Found: It’s a GOP Myth

...The Washington Post’s “Wonkblog” offers a summary of studies and investigations that have examined the issue of voter fraud. These studies have been conducted by academic researchers, news organizations, and state governments. They all produced similar results: The massive “in person” voter fraud that Republicans claim is helping Democrats steal elections simply does not exist.


Out of all of the research cited in the story, the investigations conducted by various states are the most interesting, because they were conducted by states that are currently controlled by Republicans. For example, the Kansas secretary of state took a look at 84 million votes cast in 22 states, trying to find duplicate registrations. The result? They referred 14 cases to prosecutors. Fourteen. Out of 84 million votes.



North Carolina also participated in the multi-state voter “cross check” program. Their survey of 28 states turned up 765 people with the same names, birth dates, and whose Social Security numbers ended with the same four digits, who voted in North Carolina and another state, according to the Charlotte News and Observer. There is no word on how many, if any, of those people will be prosecuted. Even if all 765 were guilty of voter fraud, it is still a tiny percentage of the nearly seven million votes cast in North Carolina in 2012, and certainly not enough to sway the outcome of an election.


Iowa’s Republican secretary of state Matt Schultz spent two years, and over a quarter of a million taxpayer dollars, to find 117 possibly fraudulent votes, leading to only six convictions. Of those who were convicted, three were felons who believed that their right to vote had been restored.


Even though voter fraud does not exist on the level that Republicans claim that it does, there are instances of possible voter fraud in almost every election. Here are a few examples:

• Last year in Virginia, Adam Ward pleaded guilty to faking hundreds of signatures that were needed for Newt Gingrich to be eligible to appear on the state’s primary election ballot.
• In 2012, Charlie White, Indiana’s Republican secretary of state was convicted of six felony counts of voter fraud.
• Also in 2012, four staffers of Michigan Republican congressman Thaddeus McCotter were found guilty of forging over 1500 signatures in an attempt to qualify the congressman for the ballot.
• Wisconsin Tea Partier and Scott Walker supporter Robert Monroe has been charged with casting multiple ballots in several elections.

NO ONE claims it doesn't occur (despite misleading claims by some) - but it's very uncommon. Why is it uncommon? It's not a very successful way of throwing an election. People will always find examples to throw in as "proof" but so what? A handful out of millions of votes? And that is sufficient excuse to try and undermine our entire electoral integrity with this infectious madness?

Hell, the Democrats could have flown that flag with Gore vs Bush, called for violence and armed poll watchers. But this madness is new and the source is Trump. Everyone is "against him" - everyone is "biased" - the Dems, the media, the Republican establishment. Maybe it's not "Them" - maybe it's Trump himself who causing people to turn away. Ever think of that?

Vote fraud has been a major factor in multiple Presidential elections. Look up Benjamin Harrison for starters.

"Vote" fraud or "Voter" fraud? There's a difference between electoral fraud - ie ballot stuffing etc and voter fraud claiming to be a voter you aren't.

Fraud is fraud. Nixon felt like he lost the election is 1960 due to massive voter fraud in Illinois. Many Democrat partisans felt Bush won in 2000 due to fraud.

To suggest fraud in elections does not occur is more than a little naive. And yes....there is plenty of evidence fraud takes place in many elections. The question is how much which is very....very difficult to prove conclusively.

I just finished an exhaustive history of Presidential elections and you would probably be amazed at how often rampant voter fraud has happened in our history.

No one is saying it does not occur. No one.

The other thing is - is VOTER fraud rampant? Or ELECTORAL fraud? That's the thing. Voter fraud is a very inefficient means of trying to swing an election and likely not to work. Most fraud occurs in other ways.

From Wiki regarding the 1888 election where voters were paid a certain way to vote in a key swing state. I saw this myself in Virginia in the 1992 election where street bums where given packs of cigarettes to vote for Bill Clinton (I was in grad school at the time doing community outreach for the homeless). The shit happens all the time.


Blocks of Five
William Wade Dudley (1842–1909), an Indianapolis lawyer, was a tireless campaigner and prosecutor of Democratic election frauds. In 1888, Benjamin Harrison made Dudley Treasurer of the Republican National Committee. The campaign was the most intense in decades, with Indiana dead even. Although the National Committee had no business meddling in state politics, Dudley wrote a circular letter to Indiana's county chairmen, telling them to "divide the floaters into Blocks of Five, and put a trusted man with the necessary funds in charge of these five, and make them responsible that none get away and that all vote our ticket." Dudley promised adequate funding. His pre-emptive strike backfired when Democrats obtained the letter and distributed hundreds of thousands of copies nationwide in the last days of the campaign. Given Dudley's unsavory reputation, few people believed his denials. A few thousand "floaters" did exist in Indiana—men who would sell their vote for $2. They always divided 50-50 (or perhaps, $5,000-$5,000) and had no visible impact on the vote. The attack on "blocks of five" with the suggestion that pious General Harrison was trying to buy the election did enliven the Democratic campaign, and it stimulated the nationwide movement to replace ballots printed and distributed by the parties with secret ballots.[10]

That is fascinating - I don't disagree with you there - I totally agree. But this isn't voter fraud. It's electoral fraud and that is the kind of fraud that is far more common and more likely to effect an election outcome.

Sort of a digression here - but, I keep thinking this election is the worst ever (still do) but - historically....probably not - you might get a kick out of this: http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/...ampaign=2016_10_01_Newsletter (1)&utm_content