So, I know we've all heard the reports of (more than a few) illegal votes being cast. Either by double voting or votes made by non-citizens. I don't really want to get into whether or not illegal-aliens have the right to vote but more whether or not votes considered illegal made a difference in who prevailed this election. If you don't think that this is a valid question, no need to comment! Look forward to your opinions! :2wave:
Doubt it......the number of cases of fraud required to make a difference would be huge and would require a large scale organized effort which would be pretty difficult to keep covered up.
Also...I guess you would have to be pretty naive to think if large scale voter fraud was a norm both sides wouldn't partake in it. In that case election in the US period are a sham.
who knows. voting over site has become so lax no one has any idea how much voting fraud goes on. But i will tell you the ones who want to make sure voting over site remains lax all the ones how benefit from voter fraud
Double votes are picked up by the system.
If you are going to influence an election, it's virtually impossible to do it by "illegal voting". Any large numbers of such votes would be red flagged for a variety of reasons depending on the nature of the fraud.
If you want to influence an election by illegal means, you purge qualified voters from the rolls right before the election, like Jeb Bush did in Florida in the 2000 election, costing Gore about 10,000 votes and an easy win. Or you set up phony registration schemes, like Romney operative Nathan Sproul did. Or you make it otherwise difficult for the poor and minorities to vote, which is the current GOP scam.
VIDEO: Republicans caught committing voter fraud, only registering Romney voters - Detroit liberal | Examiner.com
GOP registration worker charged with voter fraud - NBC Politics
Sure...if voter fraud was effective and easy to carry off I'm sure that no Republican or Conservative group would abuse the system...
then why would they want stronger voter over site if they where. the only ones who would want a weaker security systems at homes or business are the ones who want to rob them
Let see, Obama had 65.9 million to Romney's 60.9 million votes, I'm pretty sure you can figure out the answer.So, I know we've all heard the reports of (more than a few) illegal votes being cast. Either by double voting or votes made by non-citizens. I don't really want to get into whether or not illegal-aliens have the right to vote but more whether or not votes considered illegal made a difference in who prevailed this election. If you don't think that this is a valid question, no need to comment! Look forward to your opinions! :2wave:
No. Hell, the majority of legal votes don't even make a difference.
So you honestly believe that if you could win elections via voter fraud Republican or Conservative groups wouldn't commit voter fraud...that takes tribalism and "me good they bad" to a completely different level.
Agreed. This past election definitely show you what the political lean of the United States of America is, for better or worse.
In order for an illegal vote to make any difference, it has to be coupled with hundreds of thousands of other illegal votes (If not millions of illegal votes) in a state where votes actually matter a little bit. Illegal votes in Illinois? As worthless as the legal votes in this state. In Texas? A pointless exercise in mental masturbation. In Ohio, there's an outside chance it could affect that state's outcome as long as you got about 200,000 of them, but that still might not make any difference at all as far as the election goes.
The whole "illegal votes" thing is a load of nonsense. It merely gives the illusion that our votes matter, when they do not.
There are immoral people on both sides who would take advantage of the system. The whole point of elections is to appoint officials who we don't think would take advantage of the system like that. I agree, anyone who is for stricter voting laws likely wouldn't take advantage of the system, let them be Republican or Democrat.
As for the second part...I disagree. By generally all the data available there is not a problem with widespread voter fraud so why exactly do we need to make voting more inconvenient for anyone? Why are we making people jump through any hoops to stop a problem that doesn't exist? I disagree it has anything to do with people taking advantage of the system and everything to do with setting up laws that adversely affects some groups over others....and generally those groups tend to vote Democrat.
Or it could be just 3 votes required as in the NH Senate election of 1974 where the winner won by 2.
Why are they making people get a picture ID on EBT cards but opposed picture ID for voting? Certainly people eat more often than they vote so the 'inconvienence' is much worse for them than the average voter.
"Mass. lawmakers agree on photo IDs for EBT cards"
Mass. lawmakers agree on photo IDs for EBT cards
I bet you can count on one hand all of the times that something like that happened in this country.
But what does the 1974 NH Senate election have to do with the 2012 election, or anything I said?
wrong again as usual with absenty ballots it is very easy to vote twice, I know from first hand experience. Me and my father both have the same name he voted absenty i voted at the polls. went to the polls this year gave them my voter registration card she looked on the list and said i was on the list twice and i explained the other should be my father and he should have been scratched of the list because he voted already so he could have very easily voted again in person
Agreed. This past election definitely shows you what the political lean of the United States of America is, for better or worse.
There are immoral people on both sides who would take advantage of the system. The whole point of elections is to appoint officials who we don't think would take advantage of the system like that. I agree, anyone who is for stricter voting laws likely wouldn't take advantage of the system, let them be Republican or Democrat.
The inconvenience is getting the picture taken. As you said...you eat daily and most voters vote once every 2 or 4 years. Which do you think is worth sitting around for hours in some state or federal office for a picture?
At the moment, "stricter" voting laws aren't about protecting the integrity of the system. They're about stopping Democrats from voting. So, rather than "stricter", let's go with "honest" voting laws. Those are squarely on the side of Democrats right now.
It shows that elections can be close, like in 1832 when Maryland's electoral votes were won by a 4 vote margin. It doesn't always have to be 100,000 votes to swing an election result.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?