How would one prove that . . .

[MaggieD]

~10%

Debating a myth is not what I'd call 'helpful dialogue'. That's not what we are discussing. We're discussing whether widespread voter fraud actually happens. Related, but emphatically not the same thing.

The only person I've heard pull the Nazi card in recent months is Donnie J. He's done a lot more than once.

Not that I'm aware of, and I'm no fan of the Dems btw. I'm certainly not a Hillary fan. "Well, the Dems did it" is a terrible response.

For two reasons: a) He's pissed he lost the popular vote - feels it undermines his authority; and b) It gives him an excuse to suppress voting amongst non-white/non-English-speaking electorate.

Oh, I doubt Donnie J has any intention of letting that happen.

Watch and learn, Grasshopper.

 

[radcen]

. . . ineligible people are voting?

It's always seemed so logical to me that people prove they are who they are, but the Left keeps telling us there is no evidence of voter fraud.

So I ask the Left especially -- how could voter fraud be investigated and how would one get proof that ineligible people are voting?

I believe that voting fraud is more prevalent than The Left wants to admit. I have known people who bragged about doing it, and I figure some were lying and some were not.

I do not believe that it is this huge thing, though. I also believe that it would be incredibly hard to prove. It's something I've thought a lot about, but I've never been able to come up with a reasonable strategy.

I believe showing ID would help, but only showing ID, none of the other questionable crap requirements imposed in some places. Then, there's the issue with mail ballots. That almost effectively makes an ID requirement worthless. So, where do we go with this? I don't have an answer.

 

[radcen]

Ask Trump.

He seems to know.

He knows everything.

 

[MaggieD]

I believe that voting fraud is more prevalent than The Left wants to admit. I have known people who bragged about doing it, and I figure some were lying and some were not.

I do not believe that it is this huge thing, though. I also believe that it would be incredibly hard to prove. It's something I've thought a lot about, but I've never been able to come up with a reasonable strategy.

I believe showing ID would help, but only showing ID, none of the other questionable crap requirements imposed in some places. Then, there's the issue with mail ballots. That almost effectively makes an ID requirement worthless. So, where do we go with this? I don't have an answer.

I don't either. And I agree with you that absentee ballots are the biggest risk. I've even seen some from the left on this site agree with that. It is becoming harder and harder for me to believe there is some mass conspiracy going on. And that voting irregularities are little more than anomalies.

But one thing I have learned in my life is that if there is a way to game the system, ANY system, people will find it. I wish the investigation good luck. Even if it's only accomplishment is to tighten up voter rules and polling places. Americans deserve honest elections.

I always remember the old saying, "It's not who votes that counts. It's who counts the votes."

 

[poweRob]

Alright consrvatives... let's find common ground.

1) Make federal elections handled by the federal government and not the states and actually make voting a constitutional right.
2) We standardize the vote using the same methods and systems nation-wide where a recountable paper trail is mandatory.
3) You demand an I.D. (provided free if you don't have one already)
4) I demand that any felon who has served their time cannot be denied their right to vote.
5) You demand ?
6) I demand that it be a felony of a federal offense if you are found to have been orchestrating the suppression of others' vote.
7) You demand ?
8) I demand you are automatically registered to vote when you turn 18. No hoops to jump through to register.
​

We have a deal?

 

[radcen]

Alright consrvatives... let's find common ground.

1) Make federal elections handled by the federal government and not the states and actually make voting a constitutional right.
2) We standardize the vote using the same methods and systems nation-wide where a recountable paper trail is mandatory.
3) You demand an I.D. (provided free if you don't have one already)
4) I demand that any felon who has served their time cannot be denied their right to vote.
5) You demand ?
6) I demand that it be a felony of a federal offense if you are found to have been orchestrating the suppression of others' vote.
7) You demand ?
8) I demand you are automatically registered to vote when you turn 18. No hoops to jump through to register.
​

We have a deal?

Not a conservative, but I'll play...

1) No on federal government. Yes on Constitutional right.

2) We need something, but I balk at nationwide systems. Agree on paper trail.

3) ID required to register and vote... and that's it. I'm fine with it being free to obtain (ID, not DL), provided it's legitimately obtained and citizens only. I also favor a 5 year phase in (with no delays or extensions), to allow people to get an ID wherever they have to. If you can't get it done in 5 years, it's clearly not important to you.

4) Agreed. Sentence, done, you get to vote. No applications or approvals from anyone necessary. Automatic. One exception: If your crime was vote fraud related, you don't get your right to vote back... ever.

5) Limits on absentee ballots. Legit reasons only, not just because you want to vote at home in your jammies. States with mail ballots only excepted.

6) Agreed.

7) Names who have not voted in a given time frame (i.e.: 10 yrs [negotiable]) automatically dropped from the rolls. Everybody dies eventually and a lot of people move and re-register in their new location, and we need to keep it efficient, and if these names are used illegitimately, this would help thwart that.

8) No. You need to do something, and it's not unreasonable to require a person to put forth the absurdly minimal effort of registering. Partially related to #7 above. It should be easy, though. No ridiculous hoops.

 

[poweRob]

Not a conservative, but I'll play...

1) No on federal government. Yes on Constitutional right.

2) We need something, but I balk at nationwide systems. Agree on paper trail.

3) ID required to register and vote... and that's it. I'm fine with it being free to obtain (ID, not DL), provided it's legitimately obtained and citizens only. I also favor a 5 year phase in (with no delays or extensions), to allow people to get an ID wherever they have to. If you can't get it done in 5 years, it's clearly not important to you.

4) Agreed. Sentence, done, you get to vote. No applications or approvals from anyone necessary. Automatic. One exception: If your crime was vote fraud related, you don't get your right to vote back... ever.

5) Limits on absentee ballots. Legit reasons only, not just because you want to vote at home in your jammies. States with mail ballots only excepted.

6) Agreed.

7) Names who have not voted in a given time frame (i.e.: 10 yrs [negotiable]) automatically dropped from the rolls. Everybody dies eventually and a lot of people move and re-register in their new location, and we need to keep it efficient, and if these names are used illegitimately, this would help thwart that.

8) No. You need to do something, and it's not unreasonable to require a person to put forth the absurdly minimal effort of registering. Partially related to #7 above. It should be easy, though. No ridiculous hoops.

I disagree on a few but thanks for the reply.

 

[radcen]

I disagree on a few but thanks for the reply.

I would be interested in which ones you agree and disagree with.

The ones where I disagreed with your's would be obvious. I mean any others.

 

[poweRob]

I would be interested in which ones you agree and disagree with.

The ones where I disagreed with your's would be obvious. I mean any others.

The ones you disagree with on mine pretty much. I do like the idea of yours that you lose your right to vote if your criminal activitiy was intentional voter suppression or voter fraud. I suppose the one I disagree with most is your objection to auto registering at 18. I just think, if you are an American citizen, boom... its there at 18. I actually kind of like the idea of registering at 16 that way you will be in high school for a teaching moment either during a main-term or a mid-term federal election before you graduate. Get's you involved before you get to college and get all electorally apathetic as apparently the young seem to do.

 

[beerftw]

My state has a form to fillout and you can use social number or DL. I can see this taking some time to fill out. Now my SS number is national so if I'm looking for registration in other states I might have a problem. Maybe not. So lets say I take the time to forge all the bills I need to forge to prove residency. Make sure I know if each state has a DL or resident, or a SS requirement. Have a way to get ballots from all 50 states. I may have to pick them up or drop off paperwork at all fifty states. Maybe I can do some snail and email, we'll see. Then I get all 50 ballots.

Now I go vote. Voter ID laws make it difficult for me to go from state to state casting votes. I could manage it within a month if I figure out my early voting route. But lets say Voter ID is in all 50 states as the laws are want to be drafted currently. I would have to mail them in. This is the biggest market in election fraud. Mail in votes occur more than in person by exponential numbers. When in person is like 5 numbers don't have to be too big to be exponential. These cases tend to favor republicans. These were never in discussion during voter ID. The reason the cost to police would be outrageous is because it happens so little. Have a pilot program. Go to Chicago. Find some there. report back, draft laws. Try it in Miami. There is no need to police. It doesn't occur enough to represent any threat. Should we have a jaywalking division in every department? Jaywalking is against the law. But does it constitute any real threat to anything?

If people arguing about voter fraud use numbers you can't get to in a hand or two, they are lying to inspire fear.

Part of the issue with the theory of yours is that none of the 50 states would know your ss number was used elsewhere unless they shared their rolls across states. So if you voted in nevada and cali, it would only be found if cali and nevada shared their voter rolls and cross examined them.

The federal govt only does a small audit of voter rolls rather than checking all of them. For a voter id to properly work the voter registrations and voting system need to be redone into a national database and registry.

 

[Bark]

Part of the issue with the theory of yours is that none of the 50 states would know your ss number was used elsewhere unless they shared their rolls across states. So if you voted in nevada and cali, it would only be found if cali and nevada shared their voter rolls and cross examined them.

The federal govt only does a small audit of voter rolls rather than checking all of them. For a voter id to properly work the voter registrations and voting system need to be redone into a national database and registry.

Ok I'll grant the ss thing. What about residency requirements?

And don't you think that a national database and registry is against the constitution?

 

[beerftw]

Ok I'll grant the ss thing. What about residency requirements?

And don't you think that a national database and registry is against the constitution?

National registry it depends, the reason firearm owners are against it is because historically they have been used for confiscation. For voters no one can really knock on your door and take away votes, but I could see it being used to prosecute and punish voters for ahem voting wrong like they do in some dictatorships.

But in terms of finding voter fraud, that is probably the only way, otherwise we would have to deal with states blocking eachothers investigations.

 

[Bark]

National registry it depends, the reason firearm owners are against it is because historically they have been used for confiscation. For voters no one can really knock on your door and take away votes, but I could see it being used to prosecute and punish voters for ahem voting wrong like they do in some dictatorships.

But in terms of finding voter fraud, that is probably the only way, otherwise we would have to deal with states blocking eachothers investigations.

I understand that registry thing. But Jade Helm never worried me neither does this. My issue with the national database is that the constitution says elections are reserved to the states. period. Except Bush v Gore. Which they said was not setting a precedent. AKA the only scotus case to not set a precedent, ever.

Voter fraud just doesn't exists. Except the Russia thing. But that's not our issue. There is no incentive to do it. The organization it would take to get even thousands, let alone millions, of illegals to risk deportation and prison for one vote that could be invalidated would be massive. It would be easier to uncover than our first lady, lol, ba dum dum!

 

[Baralis]

Millions and millions of dollars have been spent. Voter rolls examined. Name, birthday, social security numbers compared. A literal handful is all the people with all that effort that have been found to vote illegally. There is, quite literally, no evidence to suggest that ineligible people are voting in any significant numbers.

The problem with this is they can not find what they cannot prove. Here in Missouri for example (I have and old post with a lot more details here on DP somewhere) a person can mail in their vote without proof of anything with only your signature proclaiming that you are a legal citizen. How exactly are they meant to prove that it is illegitimate when no proof of identity or legal status is required? I could probably vote for half the people that I know that do not bother on any given election to vote. How are they going to prove it is not them?

 

[DiAnna]

Since states like California, New York and Illinois, for examples, are SO lenient on undocumenteds (Cali. actually supplies Cali. Driver's Licenses to illegals and is one documentation accepted by most states as proof of voter eligibility), I'd start a congressional investigation scrutinizing California's elections for undocumented - actual - voter fraud.

That is absolutely false. I abhor the fact that illegals can get drivers' licenses in Calif., but it takes more than a DL to register to vote in Calif, which has some of the most stringent voter registration laws in the nation. You want to believe that 4+ million illegal votes were cast in order to assure yourself that Trump did indeed capture the popular vote, when he absolutely did not, knock yourself out. The ONLY recognized, documented voter fraud in California was decades ago, when B-1 Bob Dornan was able to prove that approx. 600 votes in his district were suspect, which still didn't put a dent in the shellacking he got by the democrat, Loretta Sanchez.

You are swallowing the Trump Kool-aid to believe that 4 million+ California votes were illegal, when the state is one of the most stringent in validating approved voter registration in the nation.

 

[Lord of Planar]

. . . ineligible people are voting?

It's always seemed so logical to me that people prove they are who they are, but the Left keeps telling us there is no evidence of voter fraud.

So I ask the Left especially -- how could voter fraud be investigated and how would one get proof that ineligible people are voting?

That's the problem.

They have gotten rid of all ways of verifying, and that's why there is no evidence.

 

[Lord of Planar]

We've been voting by mail in Oregon since 2000. Voter fraud is rare:



Vote fraud is extremely rare and always unacceptable | OregonLive.com

That penalty is pretty severe.

And a more recent article:

Despite easy voter access, voter fraud deemed rare in Oregon - KTVZ

Do you realize how much of a joke that is linking the Oregonian?

The problem here in Oregon is yo can register to vote get a card mailed to you, and never have to provide a shred of evidence you are eligible.

 

[DiAnna]

I don't either. And I agree with you that absentee ballots are the biggest risk. I've even seen some from the left on this site agree with that. It is becoming harder and harder for me to believe there is some mass conspiracy going on. And that voting irregularities are little more than anomalies.

But one thing I have learned in my life is that if there is a way to game the system, ANY system, people will find it. I wish the investigation good luck. Even if it's only accomplishment is to tighten up voter rules and polling places. Americans deserve honest elections.

I always remember the old saying, "It's not who votes that counts. It's who counts the votes."

I have voted by mail for many years, since I became too ill to actually get to the voting booth. My signature is on file in Calif., and must pass muster in order for my ballot to be counted. If it doesn't, the ballot will be set aside. If I'm ever too infirm to actually sign my own ballot, someone may sign their own name as my signatory, after having given their own name, SS#, address and other personal information that can be affirmed by security and law enforcement.

California has more redundant fail-safes that most states in this country, and quite frankly it pisses me the hell off that some thin-skinned elitist asshole can simply declare that nearly 40 million votes in MY state are suspect because although he won the damned election via the EC, he can't stand the fact that his opponent won the popular vote so he's stomping his little feet and insisting that if he didn't win EVERYTHING, somebody is cheating!

Maybe he should be crying on Putin's shoulder about cheating and trying to affect the election. I'm sure he'd be comforted by the damned Russians.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I have voted by mail for many years, since I became too ill to actually get to the voting booth. My signature is on file in Calif., and must pass muster in order for my ballot to be counted. If it doesn't, the ballot will be set aside. If I'm ever too infirm to actually sign my own ballot, someone may sign their own name as my signatory, after having given their own name, SS#, address and other personal information that can be affirmed by security and law enforcement.

California has more redundant fail-safes that most states in this country, and quite frankly it pisses me the hell off that some thin-skinned elitist asshole can simply declare that nearly 40 million votes in MY state are suspect because although he won the damned election via the EC, he can't stand the fact that his opponent won the popular vote so he's stomping his little feet and insisting that if he didn't win EVERYTHING, somebody is cheating!

Maybe he should be crying on Putin's shoulder about cheating and trying to affect the election. I'm sure he'd be comforted by the damned Russians.

I'm sorry, but do you expect any of us to trust the California state officials?

Until we have some type of verification, there will always be distrust.

 

[Mustachio]

I am liberal. I can tell you how voter fraud can be investigated. You would hire people (a lot of them - it would be like getting called for jury duty and you'd need about 5 million people) and they would call and ask each person who voted whether or not they actually voted and who they voted for. This basically happened in Minnesota when Al Franken was elected, we had the recount, he won by 300 some votes, and a conservative group came in and tried to prove that it was fraud. The information was public and they went through each one.

It then went to the government, where each claim of fraud was examined individually and I believe they confirmed that the only suspected cases of voter fraud were people who were thought to have voted twice because they had common names like John Smith. It was pretty funny. So each state is different but if you study Minnesota's recount, it's pretty clear that there is no widespread voter fraud assuming we can extrapolate the data obtained by the recount.

Another way would be for you to wait in the bushes by the polling place for an old hispanic man to come and say he is you. Then jump out and scare him and detain him until the police come.

 

[radcen]

I'm sorry, but do you expect any of us to trust the California state officials?

Until we have some type of verification, there will always be distrust.

I sense that no level of verification would be enough.

 

[radcen]

I don't either. And I agree with you that absentee ballots are the biggest risk. I've even seen some from the left on this site agree with that. It is becoming harder and harder for me to believe there is some mass conspiracy going on. And that voting irregularities are little more than anomalies.

But one thing I have learned in my life is that if there is a way to game the system, ANY system, people will find it. I wish the investigation good luck. Even if it's only accomplishment is to tighten up voter rules and polling places. Americans deserve honest elections.

I always remember the old saying, "It's not who votes that counts. It's who counts the votes."

I do not believe it is some grand conspiracy by a party or any other organization. I believe that fraudulent voting is primarily done by individuals, which would make it even more difficult to detect.

Shoot, if it were a party conspiracy, why would they put them all in California which was guaranteed to go Dem anyway? Why didn't they put the illegal voters in the swing states where it might actually make a difference? :shrug: :2razz:

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

The twisted logic of the Trump apologists is amazing.

They and Trump do NOT have to prove 3 mil illegals voted, they are demanding the other side proves 3 mil illegals DIDN'T vote.

If Trump and his apologists don't have to prove a damn thing then why stop at 3 mil? Make it 12 mil illegals voted. That way Trump would have won the popular by a landslide. That'll make him and his ego feel better. lol

Unbelievable.

 

[MaggieD]

That's the problem.

They have gotten rid of all ways of verifying, and that's why there is no evidence.

Exactly right. Why? Why would the Left oppose either a thorough investigation or voter I.d.? There is no logical reason to do so.

 

[MaggieD]

I have voted by mail for many years, since I became too ill to actually get to the voting booth. My signature is on file in Calif., and must pass muster in order for my ballot to be counted. If it doesn't, the ballot will be set aside. If I'm ever too infirm to actually sign my own ballot, someone may sign their own name as my signatory, after having given their own name, SS#, address and other personal information that can be affirmed by security and law enforcement.

California has more redundant fail-safes that most states in this country, and quite frankly it pisses me the hell off that some thin-skinned elitist asshole can simply declare that nearly 40 million votes in MY state are suspect because although he won the damned election via the EC, he can't stand the fact that his opponent won the popular vote so he's stomping his little feet and insisting that if he didn't win EVERYTHING, somebody is cheating!

Maybe he should be crying on Putin's shoulder about cheating and trying to affect the election. I'm sure he'd be comforted by the damned Russians.

Well, I see you're fair and balanced. You almost had me 'til your last line.