Quantcast
Florida's Election Officials Questionable Behavior During the Recount is Harming Rick Scott

Forums - Politics Discussion - Florida's Election Officials Questionable Behavior During the Recount is Harming Rick Scott

FoxNews... Might be not objective enough...
But see for yourself:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzskmXBGMz8

There once was a great sig here, but it got killed.

A moment of silence would be appreciated.

Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:

Prove it.  Prove it is under-counted.  Hiku just gave you a massive list supporting his case and you have....what?

Human nature and the fact that all crimes are under-reported.



NightlyPoe said:
SpokenTruth said:

Prove it.  Prove it is under-counted.  Hiku just gave you a massive list supporting his case and you have....what?

Human nature and the fact that all crimes are under-reported.

That's not proof of anything.  Give me data.  How much is it under-reported?  Are we talking half?  So 62 instances?  A factor of 10?  310?

 

Wait....I know.  It's off by a factor of 100,000.  That means 3,100,000.  Or, you know, about the number Trump claimed (without evidence) illegally voted for Clinton.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
NightlyPoe said:

Human nature and the fact that all crimes are under-reported.

That's not proof of anything.  Give me data.  How much is it under-reported?  Are we talking half?  So 62 instances?  A factor of 10?  310?

 

Wait....I know.  It's off by a factor of 100,000.  That means 3,100,000.  Or, you know, about the number Trump claimed (without evidence) illegally voted for Clinton.

Human nature is plenty proof.  We are not angels.  In every other matter of life we cheat, steal, and break rules.  Voting is exceptional because...?  So we can safely work under the assumption that the inability to find anyone is merely proof that it's easy to get away with.

I also do not speak for Trump or his Twitter posts.  My personal belief is that voting fraud hurts at the margins and flips close races.  Democrats have had a peculiar habit of winning very close races.  And while the claim might be that it just means they're better at getting out the vote, you would think the advantage would be a uniform pull for competitive races instead of just in races that happen to end up super-close on election day.  Furthermore, the Democrat advantage disappears once you get to races that are still close, but not decided by under a percentage point.  In fact, as the margin gets even closer (less than .5%) the Democrat advantage becomes more pronounced.



NightlyPoe said:
SpokenTruth said:

That's not proof of anything.  Give me data.  How much is it under-reported?  Are we talking half?  So 62 instances?  A factor of 10?  310?

 

Wait....I know.  It's off by a factor of 100,000.  That means 3,100,000.  Or, you know, about the number Trump claimed (without evidence) illegally voted for Clinton.

Human nature is plenty proof.  We are not angels.  In every other matter of life we cheat, steal, and break rules.  Voting is exceptional because...?  So we can safely work under the assumption that the inability to find anyone is merely proof that it's easy to get away with.

I also do not speak for Trump or his Twitter posts.  My personal belief is that voting fraud hurts at the margins and flips close races.  Democrats have had a peculiar habit of winning very close races.  And while the claim might be that it just means they're better at getting out the vote, you would think the advantage would be a uniform pull for competitive races instead of just in races that happen to end up super-close on election day.  Furthermore, the Democrat advantage disappears once you get to races that are still close, but not decided by under a percentage point.  In fact, as the margin gets even closer (less than .5%) the Democrat advantage becomes more pronounced.

So, you've got nothing other than "people cheat" and that somehow wholly refutes every study, every law enforcement agency, every local and state elections departments, etc...that have ALL concluded the same thing....it just doesn't happen like you are desperately hoping it happens.

You want it to happen and you want it to be democrats doing it which is ironic given your proclamation that "people cheat" rather than saying just "democrats cheat". If people cheated (oh, and please explain to me how they cheat), then it would be a problem on both sides.

 

And by the way, the reason democrats always gain more votes after the voting deadline is germane to how each party votes.  Republicans are more likely to vote on election day where as democrats are more likely to use mail-in and absentee ballots.  The unintuitive factor of early voting is they are counted after election day (turned in early, counted late).  Hence they gain when early reporting shows a close margin.  It's not fraud, you just don't understand the voting habits of the two parties.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:

So, you've got nothing other than "people cheat" and that somehow wholly refutes every study, every law enforcement agency, every local and state elections departments, etc...that have ALL concluded the same thing....

Well, yeah, if you consider human nature to be "nothing".  I can't think of any other crime where criminologists only look at the number of convictions when measuring its prevalence.  And further come to a conclusion that it doesn't happen as a result.

In that way I suppose voter fraud is unique.  It's being held to a completely separate standard in these studies.

it just doesn't happen like you are desperately hoping it happens.

Why would I hope for tainted elections?

And by the way, the reason democrats always gain more votes after the voting deadline is germane to how each party votes.

I made no mention of that.



NightlyPoe said:
SpokenTruth said:

So, you've got nothing other than "people cheat" and that somehow wholly refutes every study, every law enforcement agency, every local and state elections departments, etc...that have ALL concluded the same thing....

Well, yeah, if you consider human nature to be "nothing".  I can't think of any other crime where criminologists only look at the number of convictions when measuring its prevalence.  And further come to a conclusion that it doesn't happen as a result.

In that way I suppose voter fraud is unique.  It's being held to a completely separate standard in these studies.

it just doesn't happen like you are desperately hoping it happens.

Why would I hope for tainted elections?

And by the way, the reason democrats always gain more votes after the voting deadline is germane to how each party votes.

I made no mention of that.

I want two things from you which I'm guessing I'll get neither.

1. How are people committing such vast amounts of voter fraud.  Methods, tactics, etc....

2. How is it going undetected?



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
NightlyPoe said:

Well, yeah, if you consider human nature to be "nothing".  I can't think of any other crime where criminologists only look at the number of convictions when measuring its prevalence.  And further come to a conclusion that it doesn't happen as a result.

In that way I suppose voter fraud is unique.  It's being held to a completely separate standard in these studies.

it just doesn't happen like you are desperately hoping it happens.

Why would I hope for tainted elections?

And by the way, the reason democrats always gain more votes after the voting deadline is germane to how each party votes.

I made no mention of that.

I want two things from you which I'm guessing I'll get neither.

1. How are people committing such vast amounts of voter fraud.  Methods, tactics, etc....

2. How is it going undetected?

1.  Fraudulent identities, impersonation, messing with mail-in ballots.  Can't say I've spent much time trying to game the system myself, but there are plenty of methods.

2.  Better question would be how to detect it.  Beyond noting voting irregularities (like certain districts with near 100% turnout) anyway.  Let's say you plan to commit voter fraud.  You walk up to the poll worker, try to vote, but your signature is wrong or something.  Are you arrested?  Does it show up as an attempt at voter fraud?  No.  Even though you got caught, you walked right on back out without an issue.  Heck you probably blustered to try and get your way (at least in my experience when people try to get away with stuff and get caught).  Poll workers aren't law enforcement and they pretty much give everyone the benefit of the doubt that there's a legit error when there's an error (because it's usually true).

I've asked this several times now and you've never given me an answer.  Why would voting be exempt from normal human behavior?  What's special about it that we can have pretty laid-back laws on the subject but it's just pristine?



NightlyPoe said:
SpokenTruth said:

I want two things from you which I'm guessing I'll get neither.

1. How are people committing such vast amounts of voter fraud.  Methods, tactics, etc....

2. How is it going undetected?

1.  Fraudulent identities, impersonation, messing with mail-in ballots.  Can't say I've spent much time trying to game the system myself, but there are plenty of methods.

2.  Better question would be how to detect it.  Beyond noting voting irregularities (like certain districts with near 100% turnout) anyway.  Let's say you plan to commit voter fraud.  You walk up to the poll worker, try to vote, but your signature is wrong or something.  Are you arrested?  Does it show up as an attempt at voter fraud?  No.  Even though you got caught, you walked right on back out without an issue.  Heck you probably blustered to try and get your way (at least in my experience when people try to get away with stuff and get caught).  Poll workers aren't law enforcement and they pretty much give everyone the benefit of the doubt that there's a legit error when there's an error (because it's usually true).

I've asked this several times now and you've never given me an answer.  Why would voting be exempt from normal human behavior?  What's special about it that we can have pretty laid-back laws on the subject but it's just pristine?

Ok, you brought up 3 methods (4 actually).

1. Fraudulent ID. Tell me how you registered to vote with a fake ID that isn't on the state database?  And let's say you tried to register with someone elses real ID.  Guess what happens when it shows up twice on the voter database?  You were aware you have to register to vote before you can vote, yes?

2. Impersonation.  Not sure how that works because you need to show the voter registration (and ID depending on state) at the poll for voting.  So now you have to look like them AND have their ID and/or voter registration card.  But I'm going to ask how many people do you really think are impersonating others for the sake of voting and not something like...credit card fraud, loan fraud, etc...  You know, something lucrative for such extensive work.

3. Messing with mail-in ballots?  Uh, how?  Are you going mailbox to mailbox every day during early voting in hopes that steal their mail-in ballot?  Or are you thinking it's a postal worker stealing them?  If you mean submitting more than one ballot, I'm sure I don't have to inform but the SoE will not send you multiple ballots and every ballot is numbered and if you submit more than one using the same ballot number you would be arrested.  They have your printed name, address and voter registration number on them.

4. Unmatched signature.  So my ID is good, my voter registration card is good but my signature doesn't match?  That's not fraud, that's you signing your name differently than the one they had on file.  By the way, your signature is only used on provisional ballots, not in person voting....so they don't reject you in person for unmatched signatures.  And during the provisional ballot counting process, if your signature doesn't match, your vote isn't counted. If that vote is not counted, there is not voter fraud.

I've come to the conclusion you are not very well versed in the voting process.  Some of your possible fraud methods are based on a premise that doesn't match the voting process itself.


Next...human behavior and voter fraud.  Let's establish a clear delineation between what is and what is not voter fraud.  Voter fraud is the successful voting by illegal means.  Attempted voter fraud would obviously happen more than successful but the point remains that successful voter fraud is exceptionally rare.  The human behavior factor is irrelevant.  It's not that people cheat less on voting than everything else it's that successfully cheating is harder (with no financial payoff making is less enticing to do).  Who gives a damn how much is attempted.  The issue is how many are successful.  And the answer is very few.

By the way, Trump (by way of an executive order) created the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity.  It was tasked with reviewing and discovering voter fraud and improper voter registration.  He disbanded the commission because it found nothing.  Then the task was given to the Department of Homeland Security who also found nothing.

So the local SoEs, county SoEs, state SoEs, federal SoE equivalent, experts, local, state and federal law enforcement, the intelligence community, professional studies, local, state and federal commissions, etc....ALL conclude it's not happening like you claim it is.  And you claim it based on the notion that humans cheat and your ignorance of the voting registration and voting processes.  I'm sorry but the evidence and professional opinions from every public and private body that pertains to election fraud are completely against you.

At this point, your cognitive dissonance makes me wonder if you actively want voter fraud to be pervasive.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
1. Fraudulent ID. Tell me how you registered to vote with a fake ID that isn't on the state database?  And let's say you tried to register with someone elses real ID.  Guess what happens when it shows up twice on the voter database?  You were aware you have to register to vote before you can vote, yes?

Are you under the impression that all IDs in a state's database are on the up and up?  Heck, many of the controversy about this exists specifically because of rules making it more difficult to obtain fraudulent IDs.  Such as the S. Dakota controversy earlier in the thread.

Also, many states do have same-day registration and more will in the future.

2. Impersonation.  Not sure how that works because you need to show the voter registration (and ID depending on state) at the poll for voting.  So now you have to look like them AND have their ID and/or voter registration card.  But I'm going to ask how many people do you really think are impersonating others for the sake of voting and not something like...credit card fraud, loan fraud, etc...  You know, something lucrative for such extensive work.

Again, you've stumbled onto one of the main controversies.  Those who declare voting fraud to be non-existent use it to try and stop laws that require tighter standards for voting identification.  Many states don't require any state-issued ID (photo or otherwise) whatsoever.  For example, here's California's website which says you don't need an ID, but to be on the safe side the first time you vote, a sample ballot will do.

https://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/voting-resources/voting-california/what-bring/

Looking at Wiki (grain of salt noted with the source) and assuming my quick count is right, 17 states require photo IDs, 16 require non-photo IDs, and 17 don't require IDs at all.

3. Messing with mail-in ballots?  Uh, how?

How to mess with ballots whereby no one sees the person voting?  Voting for grandma or someone else in your household you know won't vote themselves, setting up a fake registration(s) remotely and getting multiple ballots sent that way.

Again, I'm sure my imagination for criminal behavior is wanting.

4. Unmatched signature.

I was explaining why it was so difficult to catch someone and why the numbers would be low and an example where a person was basically caught, but you would never show up in a count of voter fraud.  You unfortunately base a lot of the rest of your post around the idea that I am only including failed attempts.  In another scenario, the person votes and that is also how the play ends.  And it also leaves you, again, not addressing the issue of human nature because you believed that I made some sort of error.

I've come to the conclusion you are not very well versed in the voting process.  Some of your possible fraud methods are based on a premise that doesn't match the voting process itself.

Actually, I think we've more established that about you.  You seem to believe that the measures taken to prevent voting fraud are already in place everywhere, when the very controversy exists because attempts are being made to put them in place and Democrats are resisting their implementation.

At this point, your cognitive dissonance makes me wonder if you actively want voter fraud to be pervasive.

I rather find it to be a remarkable act of political will to tell a big lie long enough that people believe it.  10 years ago when this was getting started, the idea that voter fraud just never happens was greeted with chuckles even on the left.  But now it's greeted as a fact.