Election Fraud

babe

Well-Known Member
I've posted some stuff in this forum before, and it's always gonna be controversial, but here is an attempt to get actual facts on the table, if available.

There are many ways to do voter fraud, for interested partisans who believe their cause somehow warrants the effort to do it. Well, "cause" might be a superfluity in the case of many perpetrators of the crime, because self-interest, self-dealing almost always plays some role.

The issue is further wonked and wanked by ideological crusaders, usually persuasive liars who don't care about anyone or anything, likely sociopaths of the highest rank, who have little or no real conscience.

And often the perpetrators are sophisticate political operatives with a support network that can depended upon within local or state or federal political establishments.... judges on the team, law enforcement officials, etc.

Like an FBI or CIA or DOJ on the federal level, with corrupt FISA judges or FEC officials, who are perfectly willing and indeed enthusiastic to be of help in the removal of an elected president, or in substantially altering election results or campaign parameters.... anything that can possibly be done to deny the "stupid" American citizens the influence feared by professional insiders whose jobs and networks are just fine thank you.

So here's a list of crimes they can resort to....

(1) ballot harvesting. political operatives somehow given a stack of vote by mail packets or actual ballots, with a list of voters and their addresses, who haven't voted recently. So they drive out to visit the folks, ballots in hand, and help them fill out the ballots......

Or if nobody is home, just fill out the ballot for them. Nice. Wonderful. Helpful public servants.

I'll add the list later, if interest warrants the effort.

So Judicial Watch has won a lawsuit in California, where the j udges approved a settlement with county officials to take steps to remove a burden of registrated voters who no longer live in the jurisdiction

Now there will be representives mailing out requests for verification of residence, maybe going out to check on the registrants.

But the larger issues, for many, is the idea or ideal of open borders, pure unrestricted voter opportunities without regard to quaint notions like citizenship. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and many of you, and many other progressives, see this as the good we should seek....

This notion actually disenfranchises long-time residents in an area, actual citizens with vested interests, the actual taxpayers who support all the government does.

So if you are that kind of progressive, go make another thread. This thread is a discussion of how we can enforce actual laws on the books and protect the rights of citizens. While "taxpayers" and "residents" are terms that would include non-citizens, this thread is only about actual laws and actual citizens who are defrauded by political activists who cheat on the system we have.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
A run through the front pages on Google, already presumably screened for pro-progressive community preferences, shows there are many articles in California newspapers on the case filed by Judicial Watch, which has been settled with a required for some counties to clean up outdated registrations for people who have moved or died. About 1.5 M invalid registrations I thin statewide.

I intend to do what I can to source government information on population and recipients of government aid..... social security rolls..... public school enrollments, college enrollments.... unemployment claims....employment statistics, etc etc to try to get a better view of just how many people are eligible to vote, and how many or registered, and how many voted.

dull, boring.

So Go somewhere else.

I will do this for @One Brow and @Harambe.

And I would appreciate help, any help with a credible source, or a defined source that can be evaluated for accuracy or bias. This is the major issue behind various claims that a lot of fraud occurred in the 2016 elections, or 2018 elections.
 

Harambe

Well-Known Member
Contributor
Are you formatting a link and I'm not seeing it?

Can anyone else something?
 

Harambe

Well-Known Member
Contributor
So this is a better reply than the one above. I can see the reasons you have, which is an improvement.

I just posted a new thread, and you are welcome to post facts there on the subject of voter fraud. It's an old case already settled in CA, though the effort to clean up voter rolls will be on-going for sure.

But lets not do the partisan crap. Lets get some facts out to discuss.
I await your substantiated claims.
 

Harambe

Well-Known Member
Contributor
If you're not @babe, check out the spoiler. I encourage him to join us once he gets his **** together, but worry any information I provide with provide him with the disservice of not allowing him a chance to provide a stronger foothold. Again, please reform your opinions, cite sources for your numbers, and identify your own anecdotal accounts when appropriate.

I'll start with ballotopedia, as I feel like we might need some definitions.
  • Double voting (ballot stuffing): One individual casts more than one ballot in the same election.
  • Dead voters: The name of a deceased person remains on a state's official list of registered voters and a living person fraudulently casts a ballot in that name.
  • Felon voter fraud: The casting of a ballot by a convicted felon who is not eligible to vote as a result of being a felon.
  • Voter suppression: A variety of tactics aimed at lowering or suppressing the number of voters who might otherwise vote in a particular election.
  • Registration fraud: Filling out and submitting a voter registration card for a fictional person, or filling out a voter registration card with the name of a real person, but without that person's consent, and forging his or her signature on the card.
  • Voter impersonation: A person claims to be someone else when casting a vote.
  • Vote-buying: Agreements between voters and others to buy and sell votes, such as a candidate paying voters to vote for him or her.
  • Fraud by election officials: Manipulation of ballots by officials administering the election, such as tossing out ballots or casting ballots in voters' names.
  • Ballot harvesting: A person requests a mail ballot for someone else or steals a mail ballot, then uses that ballot and forges the intended recipient's signature. Also refers to filling out a ballot for someone else who has requested assistance in filling out a ballot, rather than assisting them. In some states, ballot harvesting refers to the legal practice of third-party collection of multiple absentee ballots for submission.

The Brennan Center hosts many results, extensive searches that aren't opinion. And some that are.

There's a voter fraud map hosted at heritage.org, including the only 1,241 instances of proven voter fraud.

I would be remiss if I didn't provide the Electoral Fraud wikipedia article, which itself hosts many sites of varying facts. Opinions as well.
 

Harambe

Well-Known Member
Contributor
Here is the PR by Judicial Watch on the case settlement in CA.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press...as-part-of-judicial-watch-lawsuit-settlement/

So I will first focus on LA County and try to get a handle on voter turnout, registration data, census data, etc. to evaluate the situation. @One Brow had some references in the other thread earlier today. I will look at those and respond here.
Perhaps a start. From this article:

The massive mailing is the result of a settlement agreement with Judicial Watch requiring the county to remove as many as 1.5 million inactive registrations.
No where in this article does this outline filing a false ballot on purpose. Furthermore, the last convicted case of voter fraud in the state of California(see voter fraud map in previous post) was Alexander Bronson(Non-partisan?) in 2017, who filed false candidacy.

Next.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
So here is what OB had to say on this subject in the other thread. It is clear he has some sources. If valid, these figures are pertinent.


I'm not Harambe. However, since you dragged me into this, let's look at it.



32% of registrations (1.69 million out of 5.31) are being sent letters to verify if they are still living there. Assuming even as man as 90% are not responded to, that still under 30% that will be removed.



http://www.laalmanac.com/election/el02.php

LA County had 57% turnout in 2016, not 75%. Higher than 2012, lower than 2008, and not too different from national averages. Even if every single on of the 1.69 million registrations should no longer be valid, that still puts the LA county turn out at well below 100%



Wish granted. You were wrong. No one is surprised.



Many were not residents of Ferguson, and some not even residents of St. Louis County/City. From the pictures I saw, well over 80% were black.



https://www.breitbart.com/blog/2014/08/11/Riots-in-Missouri/



I think she's either a a racist, ignorant blowhard, or is deliberating getting some wingnut welfare, just based on that one sentence. Reading further, and a couple of other articles, didn't do much to change that opinion.



57% in LA, 80% in SF (since SF is much wealthier than LA, this is not a surprise, and again lower than it was in 2008).



Perhaps next time you could go over the case with a person who knows how to add and subtract.



I agree both sides engage in vote tally corruption.
I'd consider the 90% gratis for the argument, but I don't care for it. I want reasonable estimates, and I will be better informed when we hear about the results of the mailing and the actual changes made in the voter rolls.

Of course, this can all be called "voter suppression" quite easily. It could be an occasion for LA county to actually seek out new eligible votes, literally at the same time. If you are mailing something to a address just address it "or current occupant" Then can we please get the Census data for that address? I mean, I used to be published in the Salt Lake City Directory, a public catalog used by advertisers and such. Is there such information for various voting districts in LA county?

all this said I use several homes in different places, and I'm the "current resident" in each, but I only register in one place and vote there.

So, according to OB, it's 1.67 M mailings going out. JD says as many as 1.5 M. If fraudulent vote harvesting occurred, it had to be done by someone. People have limits. One determined criminal could perhaps get hold of a few thousand ballots, and maybe.... unlikely but maybe.... go check on the inactive voter and smile and maybe even just fill out the ballot courteously.... more likely, he would just get a trunkload of ballots in his car and go to his office and fill them out, and then drive back to the ballot counters. But even so, my estimate of 0.3M fraudulent ballots cast in LA county is just 20% of the inactive voters....
 

babe

Well-Known Member
If you're not @babe, check out the spoiler. I encourage him to join us once he gets his **** together, but worry any information I provide with provide him with the disservice of not allowing him a chance to provide a stronger foothold. Again, please reform your opinions, cite sources for your numbers, and identify your own anecdotal accounts when appropriate.

I'll start with ballotopedia, as I feel like we might need some definitions.
The Brennan Center hosts many results, extensive searches that aren't opinion. And some that are.

There's a voter fraud map hosted at heritage.org, including the only 1,241 instances of proven voter fraud.

I would be remiss if I didn't provide the Electoral Fraud wikipedia article, which itself hosts many sites of varying facts. Opinions as well.
Thank you for this important contribution.
 

One Brow

Well-Known Member
A run through the front pages on Google, already presumably screened for pro-progressive community preferences, shows there are many articles in California newspapers on the case filed by Judicial Watch, which has been settled with a required for some counties to clean up outdated registrations for people who have moved or died. About 1.5 M invalid registrations I thin statewide.

I intend to do what I can to source government information on population and recipients of government aid..... social security rolls..... public school enrollments, college enrollments.... unemployment claims....employment statistics, etc etc to try to get a better view of just how many people are eligible to vote, and how many or registered, and how many voted.

dull, boring.
I find genuine data dives fascinating. I just read a 1500-word analysis of the statistical differences in the various starting civilizations of the game Tapestry. If you can bring sources with actual numbers, that will be cool.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
Perhaps a start. From this article:



No where in this article does this outline filing a false ballot on purpose. Furthermore, the last convicted case of voter fraud in the state of California(see voter fraud map in previous post) was Alexander Bronson(Non-partisan?) in 2017, who filed false candidacy.

Next.
So Judicial Watch in not a police unit or law enforcement agency. I think a private citizen who would file a charge against a fraudulent voter would be taking on an inordinate personal expense, maybe heading for bankruptcy, so few will. If they file a police report, it takes police willing to devote resources to it. Most won't. Opinion of mine. no data. So the JD approach is cost-effective, and the lack of actual convictions on the fraudulent voting charge is something we should be concerned about, and not just cite it as proof it doesn't happen.

I'm sure voter suppression happens too.....at least I believe it has been historically significant in some areas of this country. But the lack of convictions for the crime is no proof it doesn't happen.
 

Harambe

Well-Known Member
Contributor
So Judicial Watch in not a police unit or law enforcement agency. I think a private citizen who would file a charge against a fraudulent voter would be taking on an inordinate personal expense, maybe heading for bankruptcy, so few will. If they file a police report, it takes police willing to devote resources to it. Most won't. Opinion of mine. no data. So the JD approach is cost-effective, and the lack of actual convictions on the fraudulent voting charge is something we should be concerned about, and not just cite it as proof it doesn't happen.

I'm sure voter suppression happens too.....at least I believe it has been historically significant in some areas of this country. But the lack of convictions for the crime is no proof it doesn't happen.
Proving Non-Existence is a logical fallacy. There are reasons to believe X could exist, but there is no evidence X DOES exist.

Ballots for inactive votes being mailed out proves only that Ballots were sent out.

Could ineligible voters cast votes? Agree.
Could the wrong people cast votes? Agree.
Confidence it has happened? High.

Proof it is happening in any statistically relevant nature? Still waiting.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
Proving Non-Existence is a logical fallacy. There are reasons to believe X could exist, but there is no evidence X DOES exist.

Ballots for inactive votes being mailed out proves only that Ballots were sent out.

Could ineligible voters cast votes? Agree.
Could the wrong people cast votes? Agree.
Confidence it has happened? High.

Proof it is happening in any statistically relevant nature? Still waiting.
Agreed.

I use the argument sometimes myself. Can't proof "God" does not exist. Logically, etc etc we have no universally accepted definition of what to look for, even. My point about the paucity of convictions for fraud was substantially validated by the brief evaluation of what it costs to prosecute even known crime, even if we had the political will in place to do it.

That it is likely happening, and therefore needs law enforcement resources, is the point of my analysis in the past. But prosecutions are more expensive than preventions. So that is where the limited money of Judicial Watch is going.

I doubt I will have a list of millions of convictions for voter fraud within your lifetime, but you're welcome to wait. We can talk all day.

So, I think your notion that the fraud occurs with mailed out voter packets..... actually mailed out.... is not exactly the method I have in mind. No, the county official, partisan and corrupt, takes in requests from voters for absentee ballots, but he has to send them out or he'll get into trouble. So those folks who have requested mail ballots are not the problem.

It's the inactive voters who never show up or request anything, and that stack of convenient ballots. Within the confines of the office, the partisan can mail out a bunch to his work office (assuming no secretary or other person seeing them), and fill them out how he wishes, and mail them back with the dead/moved voter name or return address. And then there's the other stack of unused ballots he can load into his car trunk in the dead of election eve, and bring in when he can safely unload them. It's the access to the ballots that's required, and the lack of realistic security provisions to prevent mishandling. That is a local government issue.....

I think there will more attention this coming election.....
 

Harambe

Well-Known Member
Contributor
Agreed.

I use the argument sometimes myself. Can't proof "God" does not exist. Logically, etc etc we have no universally accepted definition of what to look for, even. My point about the paucity of convictions for fraud was substantially validated by the brief evaluation of what it costs to prosecute even known crime, even if we had the political will in place to do it.

That it is likely happening, and therefore needs law enforcement resources, is the point of my analysis in the past. But prosecutions are more expensive than preventions. So that is where the limited money of Judicial Watch is going.

I doubt I will have a list of millions of convictions for voter fraud within your lifetime, but you're welcome to wait. We can talk all day.

So, I think your notion that the fraud occurs with mailed out voter packets..... actually mailed out.... is not exactly the method I have in mind. No, the county official, partisan and corrupt, takes in requests from voters for absentee ballots, but he has to send them out or he'll get into trouble. So those folks who have requested mail ballots are not the problem.

It's the inactive voters who never show up or request anything, and that stack of convenient ballots. Within the confines of the office, the partisan can mail out a bunch to his work office (assuming no secretary or other person seeing them), and fill them out how he wishes, and mail them back with the dead/moved voter name or return address. And then there's the other stack of unused ballots he can load into his car trunk in the dead of election eve, and bring in when he can safely unload them. It's the access to the ballots that's required, and the lack of realistic security provisions to prevent mishandling. That is a local government issue.....

I think there will more attention this coming election.....
If we have no evidence that it exists any any significant measure, why allocate resources to it?

To your thinking, why throw resources at proving God's existence if there is no evidence he exists? You don't throw resources at something that isn't significant.
 

babe

Well-Known Member
I think a lot of people are very concerned with the protracted comedies of election officials "finding" ballots days after the elections, and people have good reason to want the ballots watched and tracked securely so there is no opportunity for this kind of fraud.

That is why some folks are financing Judicial Watch, and why there will be more such measures sought.

honestly, it has been my opinion that this fraud is going on in significant terms. For one thing, I noticed Barack Obama's response to a question posed about voter eligibility, and Obama actually said.... Don't worry if you're eligible, just go vote." Now that was on the news. Talk about dog whistles and ****. That was like a clarion call for ineligible voters to turn out. But that is not exactly the subject of ballot handling issues..... either creating ballots or disposing of ballots....that you want data to substantiate before you're willing to allocate resources.

I'm saying that when we have political leaders being so openly cavalier about voting issues, we had damn well better start watching what they do.
 

Jazz Spazz

Inconceivable
Staff member
I've posted some stuff in this forum before, and it's always gonna be controversial, but here is an attempt to get actual facts on the table, if available.

There are many ways to do voter fraud, for interested partisans who believe their cause somehow warrants the effort to do it. Well, "cause" might be a superfluity in the case of many perpetrators of the crime, because self-interest, self-dealing almost always plays some role.

The issue is further wonked and wanked by ideological crusaders, usually persuasive liars who don't care about anyone or anything, likely sociopaths of the highest rank, who have little or no real conscience.

And often the perpetrators are sophisticate political operatives with a support network that can depended upon within local or state or federal political establishments.... judges on the team, law enforcement officials, etc.

Like an FBI or CIA or DOJ on the federal level, with corrupt FISA judges or FEC officials, who are perfectly willing and indeed enthusiastic to be of help in the removal of an elected president, or in substantially altering election results or campaign parameters.... anything that can possibly be done to deny the "stupid" American citizens the influence feared by professional insiders whose jobs and networks are just fine thank you.

So here's a list of crimes they can resort to....

(1) ballot harvesting. political operatives somehow given a stack of vote by mail packets or actual ballots, with a list of voters and their addresses, who haven't voted recently. So they drive out to visit the folks, ballots in hand, and help them fill out the ballots......

Or if nobody is home, just fill out the ballot for them. Nice. Wonderful. Helpful public servants.

I'll add the list later, if interest warrants the effort.

So Judicial Watch has won a lawsuit in California, where the j udges approved a settlement with county officials to take steps to remove a burden of registrated voters who no longer live in the jurisdiction

Now there will be representives mailing out requests for verification of residence, maybe going out to check on the registrants.

But the larger issues, for many, is the idea or ideal of open borders, pure unrestricted voter opportunities without regard to quaint notions like citizenship. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and many of you, and many other progressives, see this as the good we should seek....

This notion actually disenfranchises long-time residents in an area, actual citizens with vested interests, the actual taxpayers who support all the government does.

So if you are that kind of progressive, go make another thread. This thread is a discussion of how we can enforce actual laws on the books and protect the rights of citizens. While "taxpayers" and "residents" are terms that would include non-citizens, this thread is only about actual laws and actual citizens who are defrauded by political activists who cheat on the system we have.
This one is hard to believe for me. In Utah at least, all mail in ballots are verified by signature. The ballot returned must be signed and the signature must match a prior legitimate signature from that person that the state/county has on record. If it does not match or can't be validated, then the vote is not counted.

If you have different information on this that shows how filling something out for someone else will actually work, I'm all ear.
 

Harambe

Well-Known Member
Contributor
I think a lot of people are very concerned with the protracted comedies of election officials "finding" ballots days after the elections, and people have good reason to want the ballots watched and tracked securely so there is no opportunity for this kind of fraud.

That is why some folks are financing Judicial Watch
Look at what you just said, and what you're seeing through Judicial watch, and what you said earlier.

I use the argument sometimes myself. Can't proof "God" does not exist. Logically, etc etc we have no universally accepted definition of what to look for, even. My point about the paucity of convictions for fraud was substantially validated by the brief evaluation of what it costs to prosecute even known crime, even if we had the political will in place to do it.

That it is likely happening, and therefore needs law enforcement resources
And what you said agreed with just before than that:

Agreed.

I use the argument sometimes myself. Can't proof "God" does not exist. Logically, etc etc we have no universally accepted definition of what to look for, even.
Putting that in a different order;
  1. You identify that Judicial Watch, a conservative advocate group(Special interest), financed privately(including application for Grants), is currently investigating AND
  2. You agree there to be No Universally Accepted Definition of what to look for(let alone a conclusive, causal link exists between possible and tangible)
  3. Yet, based on private belief, you want law enforcement resources to be allocated in combating "it"
How you don't see the simple fallacy here is kind of awe inspiring. That's kind of how it's supposed to be; state real, true evidence, and let's do something about it. You even agree that there isn't even a bar, let alone hard evidence of a major issue.

Let's punt on that.

In numbers and sources, what would it take for you to accept that additional funding for electoral fraud is fiscally irresponsible?
 

Red

Well-Known Member
honestly, it has been my opinion that this fraud is going on in significant terms. For one thing, I noticed Barack Obama's response to a question posed about voter eligibility, and Obama actually said.... Don't worry if you're eligible, just go vote." Now that was on the news. Talk about dog whistles and ****. That was like a clarion call for ineligible voters to turn out.
I was so curious about that statement, as it seemed counterintuitive as something Obama would actually say. (Fwiw, if that were an actual quote, look at the difference a comma would make: "Don't worry, if you're eligible, just go vote").

Anyway, I found this entry at Snopes that seems to pertain to this claim.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-encouraged-illegal-aliens-to-vote/

From the entry: "In the full interview, it’s clear Obama is urging Latino citizens to vote in order to give voice to members of their community who are precluded from doing so by lack of citizenship, not urging non-citizens to vote illegally. Rodriguez’s question seems to be addressing a fear that voting will result in scrutiny on one’s family which could result in deportation of undocumented relatives".

The relevant part of the interview is at the link to judge, including this exchange:

RODRIGUEZ: This has been a huge fear presented especially during this election.

OBAMA: And the reason that fear is promoted is because they don’t want people voting. People are discouraged from voting and part of what is important for Latino citizens is to make your voice heard, because you’re not just speaking for yourself. You’re speaking for family members, friends, classmates of yours in school…

RODRIGUEZ: Your entire community.

OBAMA: … who may not have a voice. Who can’t legally vote. But they’re counting on you to make sure that you have the courage to make your voice heard.
 
Top