I wish that we were as developed intellectually as the nation to our south.
Not only does Mexico catch and deport illegal aliens, but you MUST show identification to vote there.
We have over two million Americans registered to vote in at least two states, and that data is based on info from GOP-led states only. The total is probably five to ten million, and then there are fraudulent votes in the names of dead people.
Is there another reason why some areas have more voters registered than their total known population?
The ONLY solution is voter ID - until we have reliable thumbprint or retinal scan technology available to local election systems.
Not only does Mexico catch and deport illegal aliens, but you MUST show identification to vote there.
We have over two million Americans registered to vote in at least two states, and that data is based on info from GOP-led states only. The total is probably five to ten million, and then there are fraudulent votes in the names of dead people.
Is there another reason why some areas have more voters registered than their total known population?
The ONLY solution is voter ID - until we have reliable thumbprint or retinal scan technology available to local election systems.
10
Millions of Democratic voters were purged from the voter rolls due to an illegal practice called, caging. This is an incontrovertible fact, and the reason why Trump stole the election. The caging system is called, Interstate Crosscheck and was instituted by Kris Kobach.
Caging has been on the increase because: 1. the 1965 Voter Rights Act was gutted by the Supreme Court, 2. The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision allowed corporate money, particularly from the Koch brothers, to be funneled into organizations that promote voter fraud as a guise to disenfranchise mostly black Democratic voters, from the voter rolls.
For details, watch BBC reporter, Greg Palast film which is a sober and well documented piece of journalism about a subject that no one seems to want to talk about. Incidentally, the Democrats also cheat, which perhaps is why voter caging is truly the elephant in the room.
https://www.facebook.com/GregPalastInvestigates/videos/10154934322417128/
Caging has been on the increase because: 1. the 1965 Voter Rights Act was gutted by the Supreme Court, 2. The Supreme Court's Citizens United decision allowed corporate money, particularly from the Koch brothers, to be funneled into organizations that promote voter fraud as a guise to disenfranchise mostly black Democratic voters, from the voter rolls.
For details, watch BBC reporter, Greg Palast film which is a sober and well documented piece of journalism about a subject that no one seems to want to talk about. Incidentally, the Democrats also cheat, which perhaps is why voter caging is truly the elephant in the room.
https://www.facebook.com/GregPalastInvestigates/videos/10154934322417128/
8
The basic problem now is that the rationals recognize truth, fiction and lies and can distinguish between them .
The deplorables don't care.
The deplorables don't care.
3
Earlier this week, Reince Priebus cited a 2012 Pew Research that he said indicated there's voter fraud in the US - an alt-Fact. I decided to read the 12 page report myself. What the report indicates is that voter registration systems across the nation are in need of an overhaul and cites a series of valid issues, addressing such issues as double registrations and deaths. Voter fraud in not the focus of the research findings, instead, it's about a system in need of repair. Citing a respected research institution and then bastardizing the data to fit an "America is in shambles" narrative is a tactic. It creates villains where villains do not exist. Instead, it is meant to pave the way for this administration to initiate sweeping nationwide voter suppression in the NAME of protecting our democratic system. The strategic purpose is to disenfranchise minority voters and enable Republicans to hold onto their power in congress and the white house. trump is an excellent foil.
If you are interested, here's the link so you can read FACTS for yourself and skip the racist narrative.
http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/pe...
If you are interested, here's the link so you can read FACTS for yourself and skip the racist narrative.
http://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/legacy/uploadedfiles/pcs_assets/2012/pe...
12
The most likely scenario is, of course, that there is virtually no voter fraud. But what if the investigation proves that there was voter fraud in Clinton's favor? Or fraud in Trump's favor, but Hillary still got nearly three million more votes? Either way, Trump would look more foolish than ever--and he cannot allow himself to be humiliated in that way; the delusion that he would have won the popular vote means far too much to him.
Either the investigation will not go forward at all, or Trump will crow the "alternative-facts" version of the results.
Either the investigation will not go forward at all, or Trump will crow the "alternative-facts" version of the results.
4
Why would anyone knowingly admit to an illegal act?
The real question, though, is this: Is the Trump camp as innocent of voting irregularities as they imply?
One thing we saw over and over during the campaign is that Trump tends to accuse his opponents of activity that he is engaged in himself--often to a much greater extent.
He harshly criticized the Clinton Foundation; and we discovered that none of the money at his own foundation was his, and that he used it to pay legal bills and buy portraits of himself. He held a fundraiser for veterans and claimed it raised $6 million, but in the end gave only $1 million, and only after being prodded by the news media.
He complained that the election was rigged even before any votes were cast; and we found out later that it was, only it was rigged in his favor, not Clinton's.
He harped endlessly on the email server issue; then we found out that he had a similar set up.
And oh, the howls of indignation over Clinton's speeches and presumed chumminess with Wall Street! Now we look at his Cabinet and think, "Wait a minute ... "
Now Trump insists that Clinton won the popular vote by mobilizing 3 million non-citizens to vote for her. Perhaps illegal votes were cast--but they were cast for him, not her.
Sound crazy? Tell me, what constitutes "crazy" these days?
Anyway, it might be worth looking into.
The real question, though, is this: Is the Trump camp as innocent of voting irregularities as they imply?
One thing we saw over and over during the campaign is that Trump tends to accuse his opponents of activity that he is engaged in himself--often to a much greater extent.
He harshly criticized the Clinton Foundation; and we discovered that none of the money at his own foundation was his, and that he used it to pay legal bills and buy portraits of himself. He held a fundraiser for veterans and claimed it raised $6 million, but in the end gave only $1 million, and only after being prodded by the news media.
He complained that the election was rigged even before any votes were cast; and we found out later that it was, only it was rigged in his favor, not Clinton's.
He harped endlessly on the email server issue; then we found out that he had a similar set up.
And oh, the howls of indignation over Clinton's speeches and presumed chumminess with Wall Street! Now we look at his Cabinet and think, "Wait a minute ... "
Now Trump insists that Clinton won the popular vote by mobilizing 3 million non-citizens to vote for her. Perhaps illegal votes were cast--but they were cast for him, not her.
Sound crazy? Tell me, what constitutes "crazy" these days?
Anyway, it might be worth looking into.
13
Good points! I think that his accusations are based on his own "sub?" conscious realizations of his own weaknesses and insecurities. The US doesn't get enough "respect"?, other countries are "ripping us off-bigly"? We are the greatest country in the world but everyone else takes advantage of us? What kind of disorder is that?
4
Voter fraud is indisputably rampant in America: millions of citizens are defrauded of their right to vote. And furthermore this fraud (like most frauds) is targeted at minority and low-income communities, which means it's targeted at Democratic voters. And it is demonstrably carried out by Republican operatives.
Indisputable: long lines at polling places in minority communities. Indisputable: gerrymandering of districts by Republican state legislatures, coordinated by national organizations bankrolled by the Republican Party and their corporate patrons.
Indisputable: long lines at polling places in minority communities. Indisputable: gerrymandering of districts by Republican state legislatures, coordinated by national organizations bankrolled by the Republican Party and their corporate patrons.
19
Indisputable: long lines at polling places in minority communities which are inevitably controlled by Democratic politicians
Indisputable: gerrymandering of districts by Democratic state legislatures, coordinated by national organizations bankrolled by the Democratic Party. In fact they have hired former AG Holder to work on it
*fixed that for you*
Indisputable: gerrymandering of districts by Democratic state legislatures, coordinated by national organizations bankrolled by the Democratic Party. In fact they have hired former AG Holder to work on it
*fixed that for you*
2
If you were a non-citizen illegally voting, would you report that in a survey? Seriously? That's one of the fundamental flaws with these studies, and given that there is a strong push to ensure that no truth data is collected from elections, there's no way to validate models.
6
John, perhaps you ought to look into your county elections board to see all the checks and balances are in place to prevent voting irregularities. All votes are counted and recounted under supervision by community members who volonteer and are vetted beforehand. At the polling station, everything is under the watchful eye of election officials and community observers. Voter registration and election administration, being done at the county level, means the responsibility to very dispersed, and the means exist at this level to verify who people are. I participated in voter registration, and the process is very controlled.
Anywhere in the world where you find real voter fraud, it is routinely done by established governments seeking to remain in power. They have the means to stuff the ballot box.
Anywhere in the world where you find real voter fraud, it is routinely done by established governments seeking to remain in power. They have the means to stuff the ballot box.
9
Unfortunately, this article supports Trump's investigation and the tightening of voter ID laws. It supports these actions by its suggestion that there exists no hard data that shows fraud did NOT occur.
The logical response would seem to be: Let's automate voter identification so we'll have loads of data to show there is no fraud.
Should we also be forced to show Aardvarks didn't vote?
The logical response would seem to be: Let's automate voter identification so we'll have loads of data to show there is no fraud.
Should we also be forced to show Aardvarks didn't vote?
2
President Trump has not alleged that 3 to 5 million aardvarks voted in the election. And an allegation of illegal voting by human beings that is supported by no evidence whatsoever does not support spending tax dollars to tilt at windmills.
8
Time to keep hammering every concept presented by the Trump and Trumpets,
Trump is the closest we have got to a fascist authoritarian dictator.
Trump is the closest we have got to a fascist authoritarian dictator.
9
Why not form a bi-partisan commission to sample voting rolls in the states with the most illegal immigrants? Ask statistically relevant samples of registered voters when and where they were born and/ or when they became citizens. Then check the answers of people who say they were born in this country against the birth records of the 50 states, and check federal records to make sure the foreign-born residents have become citizens.
1
Investigating the nonexistent "millions of immigrants" who voted illegally is important because it distracts from the apparent fact that more than 100,000 voters were stopped from casting their ballet so that Trump could win the Electoral College. A lawsuit is now pending regarding this disenfranchisement since evidence indicates that Trump won neither the popular vote nor the Electoral College.
13
The most likely source of illegal, undocumented Hilary votes is [1] in states that voted for Hilary that [2] have the largest proportions of the approximately 11.1 million undocumented immigrants [from any country] estimated by Pew to have been in the US in 2014. Millions of illegal immigrants are from Asia and Russia, and not reliable Hilary voters. But consider them all. To begin, just look at the states estimated to have 200,000+ undocumented immigrants–California, NY, NJ, Illinois, Virginia, Maryland, Washington, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Colorado. In 2014 Pew says they had 5,495,000 illegal immigrants. On basis of previous research, 9.8% of those illegals are under 18. Thus, these states have 4,956,490 illegals of voting age. Given that Hilary won the popular vote by 2,865,075 votes, if all fraudulent votes were to come from these states, 57.8% of illegals in these states would have had to have voted fraudulently. A scam of such proportions would be highly visible. Even if adult illegals made the margin of victory for Hilary by voting in ALL states, even ones where Republicans keep a close watch, 25.8% of all adult illegals would have had to have voted fraudulents. Presumably, some would have been caught redhanded by vigilant Republican poll watchers. But they weren't. This all doesn't completely prove that Trump's claim is false, but it does shift the burden of proof to him, that is, if we are not to understand him to have a psychotic borderline personality disorder.
8
This is such a red herring. It is being floated only as a distraction to the Russian involvement in the election which is at least based on facts not suppositions.
13
The larger question and the issue most relevant to the future of our democracy is, why do so many Americans fail to exercise their right to vote? According to Pew Research, the total available electorate in 2016 was 225,778,000, while CNN reports that the total number of votes cast was only 136,628,459. If we want a different kind of government, we need to mobilize more citizens to vote. Trump's lies and foibles, authoritarian agenda and brutish manner may make that objective much easier to achieve.
8
Low voter turn-out is rather astonishing, and undoubtedly overestimates constituencies which are motivated by a narrow set of issues, or are targeted and manipulated by parties. Factors affecting the rise and fall of interest are undoubtedly a testament to the benefit of providing a way to refresh leadership in an orderly and routine way. But, clearly there are birthing difficulties with moving beyond "small town" USAmerica.
The parties as a means of consensus making are increasingly at odds with how communities of identity and effective constituencies of opinion form as we move further from the much yearned for prewar past into the extra-national reality we inherited from the fact of the World War cycle. I believe younger persons today form community and constituencies more by a peer-to-peer consensus process. Loosing oneself in the collective jive of a proxy is not compelling. It's less than clear that the more educated ends of the parties have found a way to talk to these spirits while talking mob to the more traditionally reflexive.
Having been actively political during my college years in the '60's, I distinctly recall Reagan's mindless attack on us Berkeley students as the bad-message virus of choice to kill, and his will to capitalize on rage against the less obedient young among the war generation (my parents). That left many of us less than enthusiastic about party politics as a way to join in a common public life. It's a new world, and Trump is not it.
The parties as a means of consensus making are increasingly at odds with how communities of identity and effective constituencies of opinion form as we move further from the much yearned for prewar past into the extra-national reality we inherited from the fact of the World War cycle. I believe younger persons today form community and constituencies more by a peer-to-peer consensus process. Loosing oneself in the collective jive of a proxy is not compelling. It's less than clear that the more educated ends of the parties have found a way to talk to these spirits while talking mob to the more traditionally reflexive.
Having been actively political during my college years in the '60's, I distinctly recall Reagan's mindless attack on us Berkeley students as the bad-message virus of choice to kill, and his will to capitalize on rage against the less obedient young among the war generation (my parents). That left many of us less than enthusiastic about party politics as a way to join in a common public life. It's a new world, and Trump is not it.
It was Churchill who stated 'the best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.' Although it might be one's civic duty to vote
(so is jury duty BTW and yet you never see Jury Duty Drives) it is also your duty
to be an informed voter.
Therefore why would you ever encourage more people to get involved in something
they know nothing about nor have any desire to? Isn't that how you wound up with
Trump? Get out the Dope Vote? There's a reason why they don't allow children to
vote although that too can't be far off.
Why would you ever rally these people to exercise greater control over OUR lives and policies which can eventually leads to quagmire of total destruction, by encouraging imbeciles to vote? We have people voting who can't even speak the language let alone comprehend it. This is a democracy?
I personally don't vote nor ever would because I refuse to be part of and support this
massive corruption and subterfuge. James Baldwin wrote: "Ignorance allied with power,
is the most ferocious enemy justice can have.”
And I certainly believe a politician shares the ethics of a sexual predator - it's all about CONTROL and power. Politics is a game of fear. They care ONLY about themselves and NOT the American people.
(so is jury duty BTW and yet you never see Jury Duty Drives) it is also your duty
to be an informed voter.
Therefore why would you ever encourage more people to get involved in something
they know nothing about nor have any desire to? Isn't that how you wound up with
Trump? Get out the Dope Vote? There's a reason why they don't allow children to
vote although that too can't be far off.
Why would you ever rally these people to exercise greater control over OUR lives and policies which can eventually leads to quagmire of total destruction, by encouraging imbeciles to vote? We have people voting who can't even speak the language let alone comprehend it. This is a democracy?
I personally don't vote nor ever would because I refuse to be part of and support this
massive corruption and subterfuge. James Baldwin wrote: "Ignorance allied with power,
is the most ferocious enemy justice can have.”
And I certainly believe a politician shares the ethics of a sexual predator - it's all about CONTROL and power. Politics is a game of fear. They care ONLY about themselves and NOT the American people.
3
I'm not a statistician, but it seems to me the analysis that follows the assumption of a 99.9 percent correct response rate is wrong, or at least based on unstated further assumptions. If 0.1 percent, or 38, of the responses are wrong, and those incorrect responses are randomly distributed in the results, the vast majority would fall into the group that responded they are citizens. It's only if you know, or can assume, that the surveyed group overwhelmingly includes citizens that you can say most of the incorrect answers are in the non-citizen group (which may be the case). What am I missing?
Also, it seems unlikely the distribution would be random. Faced with such a survey, non-citizens would seem to have a bigger incentive to answer that they were citizens than citizens would have to say they were not.
Also, it seems unlikely the distribution would be random. Faced with such a survey, non-citizens would seem to have a bigger incentive to answer that they were citizens than citizens would have to say they were not.
6
Think about it, Trump claims:
5M people in the U.S. illegally came out of hiding, risking arrest and deportation to all cast a ballot only for Hillary. They were all successful, none were caught, they then went back into hiding. Not a single illegal vote was cast for Trump.
What's the likely hood of this?
5M people in the U.S. illegally came out of hiding, risking arrest and deportation to all cast a ballot only for Hillary. They were all successful, none were caught, they then went back into hiding. Not a single illegal vote was cast for Trump.
What's the likely hood of this?
15
1. We already have very reliable systems that eliminate virtually all instances of in person voter personification fraud. Photo voter ID laws are a solution looking for a non-existent problem.
2. Voting is a fundamental constitutional right. Photo voter ID laws make it very hard or impossible for many to exercise this constitutional right.
3. Arguments about how photo IDs are needed for driving, receiving social security, etc., are false equivalences. Voting is a constitutional right. Driving, social security, etc. are not constitutional rights. They are useful government sanctioned benefits.
2. Voting is a fundamental constitutional right. Photo voter ID laws make it very hard or impossible for many to exercise this constitutional right.
3. Arguments about how photo IDs are needed for driving, receiving social security, etc., are false equivalences. Voting is a constitutional right. Driving, social security, etc. are not constitutional rights. They are useful government sanctioned benefits.
9
The claims of voter fraud have proven baseless any number of times, but the point of making such a claim is much more insidious: to raise fear and knee-jerk oppositon to ethnic and racial minorities who have every reason to favor a more clement political direction favorable to community integration.
If the "fraud people" were serious, they would target the older voters who vote by mail and who are systematically "helped" with their voting ballots by friends and familiy members. I know by direct experience during my mother's last years. Who with even an ounce of generosity of spirit would dream of denying older citizens the right to participate even in this less than perfect way. To card these ciitizens, many would have to be carried in ambulances to the polling stations for a face-to-photo match.
If the "fraud people" were serious, they would target the older voters who vote by mail and who are systematically "helped" with their voting ballots by friends and familiy members. I know by direct experience during my mother's last years. Who with even an ounce of generosity of spirit would dream of denying older citizens the right to participate even in this less than perfect way. To card these ciitizens, many would have to be carried in ambulances to the polling stations for a face-to-photo match.
1
With all due respect sir - voting is most certainly NOT a right. It's privilege. Huge difference.
You live in Hudson County, I live just a few miles away in Bergen. Even Governor Christie admitted ( just yesterday) how massive fraud is. Watch the video where he specifically used Hudson County as a prime example of voter fraud Christie: 'There IS voter fraud' - YouTube
and why he also disallowed early voting, last year.
Let's not even get into a discussion about absentee ballots and how ripe they are for fraud or that you know longer need an excuse to cast your ballot by mail. Do you know if you get turned away at a polling station all you have to do is appear before and judge and simply swear you are legal - and nothing more? Everyone knows how corrupt NJ is - even Christie confirmed it.
You live in Hudson County, I live just a few miles away in Bergen. Even Governor Christie admitted ( just yesterday) how massive fraud is. Watch the video where he specifically used Hudson County as a prime example of voter fraud Christie: 'There IS voter fraud' - YouTube
and why he also disallowed early voting, last year.
Let's not even get into a discussion about absentee ballots and how ripe they are for fraud or that you know longer need an excuse to cast your ballot by mail. Do you know if you get turned away at a polling station all you have to do is appear before and judge and simply swear you are legal - and nothing more? Everyone knows how corrupt NJ is - even Christie confirmed it.
1
You are correct in that it is not a right, it's a *duty*. A duty made more difficult by useless laws.
BTW, I have no problem with voter id laws if the government foots the bill as much as possible. So free birth certificate, free photo, and free id card. There will still be costs for time off work and cost of transportation. So not free, but close. Doing that will cost less than another wasteful pointless investigation.
BTW, I have no problem with voter id laws if the government foots the bill as much as possible. So free birth certificate, free photo, and free id card. There will still be costs for time off work and cost of transportation. So not free, but close. Doing that will cost less than another wasteful pointless investigation.
1
This article bases its sweeping conclusions on self-reporting by non-citizen immigrants on something they probably know they shouldn't be doing: most said they didn't do it. Case closed (LOL).
2
The New York Time called President Trump a "liar" for referencing this study. It is amazing to me that even after an overwhelming mandate by the voters that the New York Times leads the way in disparaging the President with words inserted into articles such as "rant" and "rave." There is a revolution taking place and the New York Times is on the wrong side of the fence.
6
Mandate? A majority of Americans voted for Democrats in the House and in the Senate races. Gerrymandering and constitutional rules deprived them of equal say with Republicans. Hillary's greater total was no outlier and only someone who is dishonest or immune to evidence that does not support their desires could write what you have written. I am sorry but I can think of no third possibility.
2
Or the correct side, depending on the view from "your" side of the fence. I, for one, am glad one media entity is using the "L" word when it accurately describes the words of those in power. No more molly-coddling these politicians; don't let the liars get away with it.
1
Bill, what mandate? What revolution? Unless it's a revolution of the stooges and dupes, backed up by the gang that couldn't shoot straight. I'm particularly thrilled when Breitbart Bannon tells the press to essentially shut up. That sounds more like Trotsky or Mussolini.
2
Mr. Cohen conveniently focuses on a single study that has in fact been criticized rightly. But there is a great deal of other evidence that voter fraud is a nontrivial problem in the US, some of it more anecdotal and much of it less. Most importantly, unlike EVERY SINGLE OTHER western democracy, the US does not generally require photo IDs such as an identity cards (that do not exist in the US) or passports (the do) to vote, keeping in mind that driver's licences are problematic since they are provided to both legal and illegal non-citizens, depending on the state. Thus voting in the US is done on what amounts to the honor system. This alone is sufficient cause for investigating voter fraud. Whatever the conclusion of the investigation, the resulting laws should ensure there be no voter suppression. But fear of voter suppression alone is no reason to avoid seeking the truth.
3
I am a former state elections official. The states that provide driver licenses to undocumented immigrants all place prominently visible disclaimers on those licenses that they are not evidence of citizenship. But don't take my word for it. Do your own research.
2
Thank you, this is important information.
This certainly raises a question about Trump's claims that he is "very, very smart." Anyone who reads the survey and concludes that 3 million illegal votes were cast, is very, very stupid.
4
2008 Wa St Gov race. Approximately 300 votes differential, ballots found in basements and car trunks, a Mexican illegal deported with an active voter registration card, a woman testifying in court of how easy she got her dog registered to vote, the voter motor registration act under Clinton.
If any of you think it is okay to undermine the votes of citizens, it is really sad.
If any of you think it is okay to undermine the votes of citizens, it is really sad.
2
Nice story, can you reference it? Only WA governor's race I could find was 2004 that ended up in a recount. No dogs voted, no Mexicans deported. Clinton wasn't involved either. Washington now has mail voting which is probably the easiest solution for this whole non-problem and also solves the issue of getting people to the polls. The registrars check the signatures on the ballots too, and in the case of my immigrant wife, checked her naturalization certificate when she signed up.
2
No one thinks it is OK. The issue is how significant a problem it is. I believe that when Jill Stein wanted vote recounts the Republicans always argued there was no evidence of fraud. Now the same people support the claims of a proven liar and fraud that there was massive fraud- only in states that voted against him.
I urge you to practice acting justly and honestly.
I urge you to practice acting justly and honestly.
1
You are correct in your supposition that the votes of citizens should not be undermined, but you only cited examples of voter fraud and no examples of election fraud. Sad.
1
I do not understand. IF Republicans and more specifically, Pres Trump believes there were "millions" of votes fraudulently cast, why oppose recount of votes which had least amount of differences where it COULD have made difference?
IF one would risk deportation to cast votes to make difference, wouldn't you do it in swing states and not in California? Republicans vehemently opposed the recount of the votes in the 4 swing states, but asserts there were massive voter fraud? What is the rational behind it?
IF one would risk deportation to cast votes to make difference, wouldn't you do it in swing states and not in California? Republicans vehemently opposed the recount of the votes in the 4 swing states, but asserts there were massive voter fraud? What is the rational behind it?
9
In 2008, many dead people and non-citizens voted!
Remember ACORN?
They're still working, but under a different name!
America First!
1
Too bad the narrative of the story doesn't live up to the proof.
Records: Too many votes in 37% of Detroit’s precincts
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/records-many-v...
42 reports of voter fraud in Tennessee in 2016
http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/25/there-were-42-r...
No, voter fraud isn’t a myth: 10 cases where it’s all too real
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/no-voter-fraud-isnt-myth...
Voter Fraud Is Real. Here’s The Proof
http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/13/voter-fraud-real-heres-proof/
Three in Florida, Virginia charged with voter fraud
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-fraud-idUSKCN12S213
Records: Too many votes in 37% of Detroit’s precincts
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/records-many-v...
42 reports of voter fraud in Tennessee in 2016
http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/25/there-were-42-r...
No, voter fraud isn’t a myth: 10 cases where it’s all too real
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/17/no-voter-fraud-isnt-myth...
Voter Fraud Is Real. Here’s The Proof
http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/13/voter-fraud-real-heres-proof/
Three in Florida, Virginia charged with voter fraud
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-fraud-idUSKCN12S213
2
How many millions of votes does that add up to?
2
"...whether there’s any evidence for noncitizen voting at all."
You do realize that there have been convictions in Arizona for noncitizens voting.
You do realize that there have been convictions in Arizona for noncitizens voting.
2
How many, and what percentage of the overall votes cast do they represent?
1
You are guessing about the rate of response error. There is no way to know.
Maybe there aren't 3 million. Though we don't know the number it is most certainly more than zero. So to proclaim day after day in headlines that the President has zero evidence and is flat out lying about this particular issue is also somewhat dishonest.
We don't think much of his credibility but increasingly The Times is squandering it's own. He's drawing your newspaper in to an overly hysterical posture on so many fronts that it may be counter productive and dizzying over the long run.
Maybe there aren't 3 million. Though we don't know the number it is most certainly more than zero. So to proclaim day after day in headlines that the President has zero evidence and is flat out lying about this particular issue is also somewhat dishonest.
We don't think much of his credibility but increasingly The Times is squandering it's own. He's drawing your newspaper in to an overly hysterical posture on so many fronts that it may be counter productive and dizzying over the long run.
5
Why on Earth are people against voter id? It is a no brainer. It is also a no brainer that there is voter fraud. We just don't know how much. Cohn's article is just a complicated attempt to obfuscate. When there is a real investigation .. then we'll know. Why do people not want to know the truth? ... I wonder
3
Carrying a card with your photo on it does not prove you are the person named in the registration books-it proves you are the person whose photo is on your card-which you are holding.
The registration books should have a photo (or other identifying feature) to compare with the registered voter.
The registration books should have a photo (or other identifying feature) to compare with the registered voter.
Voter ID that seeks to suppress votes is the problem. These laws are almost entirely aimed at disenfranchising groups who are more likely to vote Democratic. Look at the Texas law, for example, that allows gun licenses to be used as ID, but not student ID. Come back when you have a truly neutral ID law. But you won't because that's not what is being sold.
1
People are against voter id because voting is a constitutional right. Driving, hunting, school id, soc security are privileges that citizen opt into. We are guaranteed by our constitution the right of every citizen to vote.
2
Would someone please explain as to how the Democrats could be so brilliant as to get five million votes cast, in secret, all for Hillary while simultaneously being so stupid as not to get the thousands needed to win Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin? And how the hell could Trump know, unless he is omniscient, that none of these supposed votes were cast for him?
12
Trump is tossing out baldfaced lies about voting fraud because he is a pathetic, insecure moron who can't stand the fact that Clinton got 3 million more votes than him for the Presidency.
To this Republican he is nothing but an embarrassment.
#NeverAgainTrumpNextTimeLet'sGetItRight
To this Republican he is nothing but an embarrassment.
#NeverAgainTrumpNextTimeLet'sGetItRight
4
That pretty much covers it.
1
The author says there is "no evidence ....". Fair enough - but I am curious: what would a real investigation reveal? In states with Motor Voter laws, that issue licenses to undocumented immigrants, what stops those immigrants from voting? And didn't Kansas recently attempt to require showing proof of citizenship during the Mitor Voter process, only to have a federal judge stop the effort because the statute doesn't require it? One has to admit there is at least the possibility that non-citizens are voting .....
3
Voters are registered-their names and addresses are in the registration books at their polling places and are compared with the information on their ID card and/or other documents. An undocumented person should not be able to register.
I doubt that someone can enter a polling place even with a driver's license with an address within that polling area and be allowed to vote. (and then have a different ID with a different address for a different polling place in order to vote again.)
However many people have multiple homes and could be registered in more than one place and could travel to each place to vote more than once.
I think boxes of votes left under worker's desks or dropped off trucks might be more of a problem. Or wrong times or wrong addresses of polling places published in certain areas. That could happen.
I doubt that someone can enter a polling place even with a driver's license with an address within that polling area and be allowed to vote. (and then have a different ID with a different address for a different polling place in order to vote again.)
However many people have multiple homes and could be registered in more than one place and could travel to each place to vote more than once.
I think boxes of votes left under worker's desks or dropped off trucks might be more of a problem. Or wrong times or wrong addresses of polling places published in certain areas. That could happen.
Probably won't hold up. I would think liberals would like to have a thorough investigation so they can say, "Told you so!" Of course, what happens if they do find voter fraud? Maybe that's why they are so opposed to it.
1
I've written a long critique of the study cited by Cohn, which he says disproves vote fraud, and sent it to the authors; I recommend people follow the links and see for themselves;
The study cited asked 100,000 people, on the internet, via some sampling methodology, 100 questions two of which, as best I can tell, were:
(1) are you here illegally
(2) did you vote illegally
=
and sacre bleu, some people answered yes to both!
=
I think that methodology that requires, or expects, or asks, people to self-incriminate TWICE, where one such incrimination is easily, among the fearful, a ticket to ride, as it were, a one-way ticket, um, home,...
is a flawed methodology;
=
I've done much survey research, eg, interviewed junkies in rehab; including self-incrimination to support costs, and got some answers of self-incrimination!;
=
Fraud is NOT a few people voting twice; it is wholesale improper registration, even if voting only once; in sanctuary cities and states; this is unknowable;
-
The proper scientific answer is - 'we don't know who is a legal voter and who is an illegal voter,' and so the scientific answer is - 'we don't know,' and the stance is - agnostic.
-
We are free to offer, that the presumption is legal voting;, and the burden of proof is on the challenger; but we need to make such presumption and burden explicit and normative and agreed upon;
I accept NO such default;
But then, I am a Trump zealot, in case readers weren't sure;
The study cited asked 100,000 people, on the internet, via some sampling methodology, 100 questions two of which, as best I can tell, were:
(1) are you here illegally
(2) did you vote illegally
=
and sacre bleu, some people answered yes to both!
=
I think that methodology that requires, or expects, or asks, people to self-incriminate TWICE, where one such incrimination is easily, among the fearful, a ticket to ride, as it were, a one-way ticket, um, home,...
is a flawed methodology;
=
I've done much survey research, eg, interviewed junkies in rehab; including self-incrimination to support costs, and got some answers of self-incrimination!;
=
Fraud is NOT a few people voting twice; it is wholesale improper registration, even if voting only once; in sanctuary cities and states; this is unknowable;
-
The proper scientific answer is - 'we don't know who is a legal voter and who is an illegal voter,' and so the scientific answer is - 'we don't know,' and the stance is - agnostic.
-
We are free to offer, that the presumption is legal voting;, and the burden of proof is on the challenger; but we need to make such presumption and burden explicit and normative and agreed upon;
I accept NO such default;
But then, I am a Trump zealot, in case readers weren't sure;
2
I believe that many believe that there is illegal voting fraud. However , with fraud voting estimated to be in the millions, surely someone can make public 1000 specific cases with names and dates. The absence of any proof (as opposed to surveys) makes me believe that this is a political football at best, and a method to disenfranchise minorities at worst. Surely there are some mistaken ballots recorded, but to claim fraud give me proof, as in a specific illegal who is registered and showed up to vote, or a person , though incorrectly dual registered, who voted twice. without a significant number of these, then illegal voting is an asterisk at worst. Anyone who claims to know illegal voting, MUST PROVIDE SOME ACTUAL OCCURRENCES.
3
We are not likely to find your requested individual cases;
if per my view, CA registered 3m illegal voters, we would needs show they were illegal voters, whatever euphemism we use currently, and that they voted;
I do not expect open access to registration lists and also lists of who voted;
in NYC, where we give ID cards for presumably illegals, there is rumor that those database are being purged, to impede such scrutiny;
Mr Trump will shortly, I expect, deploy the powers of the federal government, to purge voter rolls; about which purge we will hear endlessly of selective impact and the usual ism-ism;
and at that time we will maybe have, the millions and millions of names you seek, subject to privacy concerns;
but we will not have 1000 names of illegal voters who illegally voted; it won't work that way;
I explore whether a national voter ID card will come to pass, with requirements for proof of citizenship;
and I expect sanctuary cities and states to be in the forefront, of such inquiry;
that includes NY where I live; where MY municipal benefit will be cut b/c some illegals here have enough votes (??) to take the entire city hostage, and prevent federal money from coming in;
if per my view, CA registered 3m illegal voters, we would needs show they were illegal voters, whatever euphemism we use currently, and that they voted;
I do not expect open access to registration lists and also lists of who voted;
in NYC, where we give ID cards for presumably illegals, there is rumor that those database are being purged, to impede such scrutiny;
Mr Trump will shortly, I expect, deploy the powers of the federal government, to purge voter rolls; about which purge we will hear endlessly of selective impact and the usual ism-ism;
and at that time we will maybe have, the millions and millions of names you seek, subject to privacy concerns;
but we will not have 1000 names of illegal voters who illegally voted; it won't work that way;
I explore whether a national voter ID card will come to pass, with requirements for proof of citizenship;
and I expect sanctuary cities and states to be in the forefront, of such inquiry;
that includes NY where I live; where MY municipal benefit will be cut b/c some illegals here have enough votes (??) to take the entire city hostage, and prevent federal money from coming in;
1
It is not a difficult job to match each states registered voter data bases against those individual's legal status, death status or how many states they are registered in. That is why the left will fight a real investigation tooth and nail.
2
The government makes you get a social security number at birth if you are going to be used as a dependent for tax purposes. This is to ensure there is no tax fraud such as claiming dependents that don't exist. I believe that is a good system. If you need a social security number for virtually any service why would it be a bad thing to use it to ensure legal entitlement to vote and one person one vote.
I think an audit to ensure snowbirds and college students are not voting in more than one location is a good idea. I think an audit to ensure only citizens are allowed to vote is a good idea. The results of the 2000 election in Florida can make a case for a small number of votes making a significant impact at the national level.
Or is there some reason we don't want to find out what is really going on.
I think an audit to ensure snowbirds and college students are not voting in more than one location is a good idea. I think an audit to ensure only citizens are allowed to vote is a good idea. The results of the 2000 election in Florida can make a case for a small number of votes making a significant impact at the national level.
Or is there some reason we don't want to find out what is really going on.
3
That the Liberal Press is so dead-set any investigation into voter fraud make me think that Trump is onto something.
After hearing the Media for weeks obsessively call for investigations into Russia's possible hacking of the US election, to do a 180 and be completely against an investigation into illegal voting seem to be the height of hypocrisy.
And as for the cost.. Obama wasted billions and billions of dollars on "shovel ready" jobs that never were. Yet, the Press never said a word. Or to put it another way, Trump's investigation will cost less than 25% of what Solyndra cost the American taxpayer.
So go for it President Trump, let's see how far down the "illegal voting" rabbit hole goes.
After hearing the Media for weeks obsessively call for investigations into Russia's possible hacking of the US election, to do a 180 and be completely against an investigation into illegal voting seem to be the height of hypocrisy.
And as for the cost.. Obama wasted billions and billions of dollars on "shovel ready" jobs that never were. Yet, the Press never said a word. Or to put it another way, Trump's investigation will cost less than 25% of what Solyndra cost the American taxpayer.
So go for it President Trump, let's see how far down the "illegal voting" rabbit hole goes.
8
Matt Wood, you and others in this comments thread keep saying "Liberals refuse to examine the issue of voter fraud, so they must be hiding something." This article, and many others, documents the fact that the issue of voter fraud HAS been examined, and continues to be examined! The problem is that Republicans don't like the results, so they keep calling for more investigations--and more laws to fix the problem that no study has been able to find.
4
And if we spend $100M to find 1000 cases of actual voter fraud nationwide (not just being registered in 2 states or having dead people that didn't vote on the roles) should we do it? It's easy to do a spot check of a reasonable sample size. He's whacked and creating controversy where there is none to distract us from the really scary stuff he's doing and covering up. How about an investigation into the role that Russia played in the election where there is actual evidence. Trump is a master of distraction.
2
Right. Our polling places are staffed by local citizens. It is beyond crazy to imagine that millions, not one here or there, of non-citizens are slipping into polling places. It is also crazy to imagine that so many non-citizens managed to register to vote. More likely, there is name confusion with citizens and non-citizens with the same name. The right-wing, especially the Tea Party, has been making wild claims about "van loads" of "illegals" being seen at polling places purportedly all going in and blithely voting with no one challenging them. There has, of course, never been any proof (or pictures in this age of smart phone cameras).
5
I don't know what your local-citizen staffers are like in Chicago, but here in Queens, NYC's most diverse boro, with our polling staff, it is very easy to imagine that some voters are there by mistake or fraud. It is 100% the Honor System which might have worked historically, but given the pressures on it today, we need a more secure process.
1
Actually in California, illegal (and legal) aliens are allowed to have driver's licenses and register to vote with the motor-voter process. The state makes no attempt to verify citizenship
http://lasvegastribune.net/calif-gov-jerry-brown-signs-bill-allowing-ill...
http://lasvegastribune.net/calif-gov-jerry-brown-signs-bill-allowing-ill...
My concern is the cost of this "massive investigation". I think Trump used massive" or a synonym of it. Why are we spending massive amounts of our tax dollars to investigate "millions of illegals voting" when there is no direct evidence beyond an admittedly flawed survey? No doubt we will spend it, and no doubt it won't substantiate anywhere close to those numbers, and no doubt it too will have its own flaws, and finally, no doubt the perfect storm of American Politics will use it not to put an end to non-citizens voting, but instead to disenfranchise poor, minority and elder Americans from voting, as Republican states have been trying, and largely succeeding at in recent years - but this time on the National level.
Am I the only one who is thinking we have elected ourselves into some dark sort of hybrid totalitarian democracy?
Am I the only one who is thinking we have elected ourselves into some dark sort of hybrid totalitarian democracy?
6
this investigation is (probably) proceeding because the united states has elected a president who is thoroughly delusional and refuses to think beyond his unfounded beliefs. anybody who pursued the long discredited birther theory in the face of overwhelming evidence it was not true will believe anything, literally anything. the last thing such beliefs must be is true. the controversy over crowd sizes and allegedly illegal votes will be mere amusements compared to when the new president makes major foreign policy decisions based on grievous imaginings. THAT will be frighteningly serious indeed.
3
The claims of "voter fraud" holds up in only one fashion: it is the rancid rationale for denying American citizens the ballot. These laws are specifically crafted tp go after the populations that are most likely to vote Democratic: minority populations and the poor.
The GOP has control of all branches of government, and is determined to steamroll its far-right agenda over the country, whether the people want it or not. Once they have finished seizing all of our public assets and converting all Federal programs in payoffs to the ultra rich, they know that the American voter will be fed up with them. They are determined to make sure that he voters never get the chance to vote them out of office ever again. They are going to use the evisceration of the voting rights act, continuing and ferocious voter suppression, the criminalization of dissent, and concerted, unending attacks on the press, science and education, and the imprisonment and torture of their critics under the guise of "fighting terrorism."
Unless we begin to fight hard and fight immediately, this experiment in democracy is about to turn into just one more totalitarian nightmare.
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever."
The GOP has control of all branches of government, and is determined to steamroll its far-right agenda over the country, whether the people want it or not. Once they have finished seizing all of our public assets and converting all Federal programs in payoffs to the ultra rich, they know that the American voter will be fed up with them. They are determined to make sure that he voters never get the chance to vote them out of office ever again. They are going to use the evisceration of the voting rights act, continuing and ferocious voter suppression, the criminalization of dissent, and concerted, unending attacks on the press, science and education, and the imprisonment and torture of their critics under the guise of "fighting terrorism."
Unless we begin to fight hard and fight immediately, this experiment in democracy is about to turn into just one more totalitarian nightmare.
"If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face—forever."
11
What this article doesn't report is that this study was pushed by Steve Bannon's Breitbart. They have been chasing this canard to rev up the voter ID laws, so they can make it harder for legitimate citizens to vote. What they really want is to suppress democratic votes plain and simple. This massively flawed data set, collected on has many other errors. For instance they asked if you were registered to vote. A Mexican national could correctly answer this question, being they are registered Mexico. This could easily increase respondent error. In the end a peer review of this article came to only 13 potential people who could vote, and even those were iffy. So one horribly flawed study of a horribly flawed data set being pushed by a wacko website started by a British conservative foreign national is now "news". The only other right wing garbage is out of the Dornan/Sanchez congressional race. As all the potential "illegal" vote fell below the difference between her winning margin, the republican congress decided it was fruitless to pursue. There was never any conclusion about those remaining 600 . For all we know they are 100% legal. These people have zero leg to stand on.
8
"The Electoral College needs to go"
If the electoral college goes, isolated populations in coastal California end up having the power to throw the election against the will of vast swaths of the country that are disproportionately responsible for the growing and building and making that goes on in this country. It is a recipe for the end of a unified Republic.
If even 3% of the non-citizen population voted, we are talking on the order of hundreds of thousands of illegal votes. Without factoring in other potential sources of illegal votes, such as felons or duplicate voters. Were there three million illegal votes? Probably not. Might there have been a million? That is entirely within the realm of possibility.
If the electoral college goes, isolated populations in coastal California end up having the power to throw the election against the will of vast swaths of the country that are disproportionately responsible for the growing and building and making that goes on in this country. It is a recipe for the end of a unified Republic.
If even 3% of the non-citizen population voted, we are talking on the order of hundreds of thousands of illegal votes. Without factoring in other potential sources of illegal votes, such as felons or duplicate voters. Were there three million illegal votes? Probably not. Might there have been a million? That is entirely within the realm of possibility.
10
The 40 million people in California are getting a little sick of having the 0.75 million in S. Dakota, to name one example, exert outsized influence on the direction of the country in federal elections and having roughly 50 times the influence per capita in the US Senate. This must and will end - one way or another.
6
I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that the middle US is where the "growing and building and making" is being done. Productivity in the more populous coastal states outstrips the "flyover"states, as do the taxes paid to the federal government from these states. The only thing your "vast swaths" outstrip these coastal states in is the federal dollars they receive in aid.
2
@richard
Err, since CA is stuck at the hip with the rest of the USA, the only way for it to end is to move to South Dakota. Please note, voter ID is mandatory in SD. You'll need your real photo.
Err, since CA is stuck at the hip with the rest of the USA, the only way for it to end is to move to South Dakota. Please note, voter ID is mandatory in SD. You'll need your real photo.
Mathematically there are fraudulent votes cast in any election but using that logic all of the fraudulent votes would not be for the same person. But since Trump has thrown science under the bus he is willing to chase that red herring until the cows come home. Very proud I used three cliches in one sentence. Trump is a cliche - now I have four.
21
First, isn't this author the same Nate Cohn who told everybody, daily, in the run-up to Election Day that Hillary Clinton had an 85% chance of being elected President?
So I take his statistical analyses with a box of salt.
Second, California has never conducted an audit of those registering to vote under motor voter. Office holders actually seem to be resisting audits. What are they trying to hide?
The situation in CA could very easily be abused given the use of the RMV to document illegal aliens and to register voters at the same time, and no checks at all.
Interestingly, the candidates most likely to be hurt are African-Americans running against Latinos.
If California continues to refuse to address the issue, sooner or later this is going to result in a political nuclear explosion in the middle of the California Democratic coalition.
So I take his statistical analyses with a box of salt.
Second, California has never conducted an audit of those registering to vote under motor voter. Office holders actually seem to be resisting audits. What are they trying to hide?
The situation in CA could very easily be abused given the use of the RMV to document illegal aliens and to register voters at the same time, and no checks at all.
Interestingly, the candidates most likely to be hurt are African-Americans running against Latinos.
If California continues to refuse to address the issue, sooner or later this is going to result in a political nuclear explosion in the middle of the California Democratic coalition.
10
Nate Cohn is reporting on a peer review of research done by three other researchers (not his own analysis) and, to those of us in the sciences, sheds light on some interesting aspects of "survey data" anomalies and their statistical implications. It was an informative read and we can all draw our own conclusions (box of salt or not).
22
Hillary Clinton DID have an 85% chance of winning (or 70% according to Nate Silver's model).
And that left Trump with a 15% (or 20%) chance. And that his how probability works. Get it?
HRC did win 2.8 million more votes than Trump. And the nationwide result was well withing the margin of error. So the statistical models (or at least Silver's model) performed well.
And that left Trump with a 15% (or 20%) chance. And that his how probability works. Get it?
HRC did win 2.8 million more votes than Trump. And the nationwide result was well withing the margin of error. So the statistical models (or at least Silver's model) performed well.
11
Nate Cohn was also basing his bets on the election in available polling data. He didn't make the polls themselves, he interpreted what their findings likely meant.
2
I think the Democrats should agree with Trump that there are issues with voting in this country and as such, propose the following:
Voter ID required at all voting locations. These National IDs will be given out at no cost and available at Post Offices and DMV locations across the state. We should encourage all citizens to vote and make it easy to do so.
National elections need to have National standards. There's no consistency from state to state. If you like, you can register as a Democrat or a Republican but you don't have to - a lot of people wanted to cross party lines this year, but were unable to vote in their primaries. Trump's children couldn't vote for him in the primary since they were registered Democrats. You should be able to vote for whatever candidate you want to vote for.
No more gerrymandering. It would be easy to develop a software program that maps out the population of each state and divides it by the number of Representatives in the state. No more partisan and non-contiguous districts.
The Electoral College needs to go. It was devised for a period in time that isn't relevant to our modern society. Whoever gets the most votes wins.
Elections should be limited with time and money. Presidential elections can run for one year only and no more than $25 million can be spent by the candidate with NO outside funds allowed.
The GOP won't agree to any of this but Democrats can at least be on record for advocating fair elections.
Voter ID required at all voting locations. These National IDs will be given out at no cost and available at Post Offices and DMV locations across the state. We should encourage all citizens to vote and make it easy to do so.
National elections need to have National standards. There's no consistency from state to state. If you like, you can register as a Democrat or a Republican but you don't have to - a lot of people wanted to cross party lines this year, but were unable to vote in their primaries. Trump's children couldn't vote for him in the primary since they were registered Democrats. You should be able to vote for whatever candidate you want to vote for.
No more gerrymandering. It would be easy to develop a software program that maps out the population of each state and divides it by the number of Representatives in the state. No more partisan and non-contiguous districts.
The Electoral College needs to go. It was devised for a period in time that isn't relevant to our modern society. Whoever gets the most votes wins.
Elections should be limited with time and money. Presidential elections can run for one year only and no more than $25 million can be spent by the candidate with NO outside funds allowed.
The GOP won't agree to any of this but Democrats can at least be on record for advocating fair elections.
29
CatShack Florida
I would agree with you on most, including voter ID.
Where you lost me is about the Electoral College.
Most people agree that it plays a crucial role in obtaining
a true representation of the entire nation, not just population
centers. It is a brilliantly conceived way to equalize sheer numbers
against the spread of an immense continent and prevent a hegemony
of dense population areas.
We are all Americans.
I would agree with you on most, including voter ID.
Where you lost me is about the Electoral College.
Most people agree that it plays a crucial role in obtaining
a true representation of the entire nation, not just population
centers. It is a brilliantly conceived way to equalize sheer numbers
against the spread of an immense continent and prevent a hegemony
of dense population areas.
We are all Americans.
There are parts to this that the GOP would agree to, except the elimination of the EC i would think. But, regarding gerrymandering, if it is a software program that creates the districts, you would lose the "minority-majority districts" that have been in place since the 60's. What would you say to groups that no longer have someone who looks like them in power because their group isn't a minority in any districts? Do you then need to "adjust" the districts to make sure a sufficient number of each demographic is represented? Isn't that, in itself, gerrymandering?
In a winner take all scenario, I'm not sure how much protection rural areas need from larger population centers? All votes would be equal, and whoever gets the most wins. While I am leery of changing the Founder's visions and concerns on voting rights, it doesn't seem fair that a candidate who received nearly 3 million more votes than her opponent lost. I'm not sure I can think of another "contest" where the winner ended up losing.
It is very interesting that Trump and Bannon keep citing these studies which are flawed or in no way really find actual voting fraud (the Pew study is about people on voter rolls not actual double or fraud voting). If Trump and Bannon have their way there would be no government money for social science research of this type especially if done at an American University. Now on the other hand they are crazy about work at the esteemed Heritage foundation but not even this politically biased foundation support them on this voter fraud business.
6
I am positive Kellyanne Conway is busy running her Alternative Fax Machine to create the Credible Study of Voter Fraud by? .....( you guessed it) Kellyanne Conway. Like a fairy take she reads her children who are gullible enough to buy it hook, line and sinker. Hopefully, ( and that day cannot come soon enough) the Alternative Fax Machine will run out of paper...probably after a few more forests are cut down. In the mean time the people who supported Trump are sitting there saying..." yeah, told you so... Kelly Anne Conways study says it".
3
There's video of an Obama interview by Gina Rodriquez where she asks hims specifically about "dreamers" and "undocumented citizens" voting, and he assures her no one will go after them if they do vote.
And it's simply not possible for anyone but the federal government to conduct an accurate study on this issue, because only the federal government can determine who is and isn't a citizen. It would be very interesting to take random samples of people issued a non-citizen driver's license or financed a purchase on a matricula ID and see if any appear on the voter registration rolls.
And it's simply not possible for anyone but the federal government to conduct an accurate study on this issue, because only the federal government can determine who is and isn't a citizen. It would be very interesting to take random samples of people issued a non-citizen driver's license or financed a purchase on a matricula ID and see if any appear on the voter registration rolls.
10
No, there is no such assurance by Obama. There is a deceptively edited version of the interview in which Obama is made to look like he's giving that assurance. But if you listen to the unedited interview or read the transcript, you will see the video you cite is a lie.
It's here:
http://www.snopes.com/obama-encouraged-illegal-aliens-to-vote/
Read the transcript. It'll take you 2 minutes. That's a reasonable amount of time to get to the truth, isn't it?
It's here:
http://www.snopes.com/obama-encouraged-illegal-aliens-to-vote/
Read the transcript. It'll take you 2 minutes. That's a reasonable amount of time to get to the truth, isn't it?
4
Not only is trump sure that 3 to 5 million illegal votes were cast, but he is certain that not a single one was cast for him (per his network TV interview). The only evidence he seems to present is the Pugh study, which had nothing to do with illegal voting, but focused on voter lists. As if the current status of our executive is not frightening enough, we have a POTUS so confident in his own brilliance that he doesn't even take the time to understand studies before offering them to support his lies. How carefully will he study security briefings before pulling the nuclear trigger?
19
I can't help but notice how every liberal that talks about this wants to turn illegal voting into non-citizens. What about people voting multiple times or dead people voting? Every election there are examples of more people voting in some districts (all of them seem to be Dem e.g. Philadelphia) than there are registered. What's with that?
5
And trump knows that every illegal vote was cast for Hillary. How weird is that?
I also can't help noticing how so many people are prevented from voting by ridiculous voter suppression laws, and how almost all of those people are minorities in Republican states.
I also can't help noticing how so many people are prevented from voting by ridiculous voter suppression laws, and how almost all of those people are minorities in Republican states.
16
If you can cite any official report from any board of elections in the country (not from Breitbart news) of more votes cast than voters registered, then I'll concede that you're not making this up.
And by the way, it's not liberals who keep associating illegal voting with non-citizens - it's the President of the United States, the Honorable Donald J. Trump.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
And by the way, it's not liberals who keep associating illegal voting with non-citizens - it's the President of the United States, the Honorable Donald J. Trump.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
20
As usual, vague evidence-free claims by Trump partisans. Which districts in Philadelphia had more votes than registered voters? What's your evidence that this occurred?
Even funnier: to date the only verified vote cheaters were for Trump. Take for example, Terri Lynn Rote in Iowa, whose justification for voting twice for Trump was, “The polls are rigged.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/29/trump-supp...
Even funnier: to date the only verified vote cheaters were for Trump. Take for example, Terri Lynn Rote in Iowa, whose justification for voting twice for Trump was, “The polls are rigged.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/29/trump-supp...
6
Of course they are talking in Newspeak.
And here they go again today, from (and about) my paper of record, The New York Times, on not predicting Trump would win the election:
“The elite media got it dead wrong, 100 percent dead wrong,” Mr. Bannon said of the election, calling it “a humiliating defeat that they will never wash away, that will always be there.”
Did you, dear NYT, have it wrong? Maybe you didn't have it wrong at all. At least not until Putin (and, god save us, our own FBI) put thumbs on scale.
And here they go again today, from (and about) my paper of record, The New York Times, on not predicting Trump would win the election:
“The elite media got it dead wrong, 100 percent dead wrong,” Mr. Bannon said of the election, calling it “a humiliating defeat that they will never wash away, that will always be there.”
Did you, dear NYT, have it wrong? Maybe you didn't have it wrong at all. At least not until Putin (and, god save us, our own FBI) put thumbs on scale.
8
Well, if the claim is bogus, shouldn't be a problem, right? So why don't we just take a look before we call it off. I'd start with L.A., Sacramento, and the Bay Area in California. Move to the rural areas after that, especially the wine producing regions.
14
Investigating 3 to 5 million illegal votes, all cast in favor of trump without any evidence beyond the word of our fibber-in-chief would seem to be a total waste of money. Wait, perhaps Mexico will pay for that too!
2
Given we can't trust the administration on inaugural crowd turnout, I don't trust them on this matter. And especially not on how they would attempt to use the "results."
NPR had a great report on a young man used in Texas as the basis for their voter laws, he has illegally voted on behalf of his dead father. Turns out he hadn't voted as himself, though, and he had his father's same name... In other words, the election judge mismarked him in the system and he didn't notice. Then became the poster boy of fraud. That's the best case they had? To upend the entire state voting system?
NPR had a great report on a young man used in Texas as the basis for their voter laws, he has illegally voted on behalf of his dead father. Turns out he hadn't voted as himself, though, and he had his father's same name... In other words, the election judge mismarked him in the system and he didn't notice. Then became the poster boy of fraud. That's the best case they had? To upend the entire state voting system?
2
Well, what are the chances that some illegal someone who did vote illegally wouldn't admit to it on the survey? Jeez, I don't know, I mean doesn't everyone answer questions from random callers totally honestly? There's really just no rational basis to think that anyone has ever voted illegally except for maybe that one lady who got caught or will ever vote illegally in the future. It would take a lot of guts to just walk in and sign a name somewhere and vote.
3
Literally your dispute of the study is 'response error', I hope you understand that works the other way as well, they kinda balance each other out. This is crazy, NYT readers should apply a little more critical thinking to the current trend of articles being spewed by the NYT. I get it, Trump is a wild spectacle, but was created/elected in an exact counter to the pompous narrative this paper follows. Bannon's description of NYT & Wash Post is spot on, and the sooner you grasp that, the less divisive this country will be. Liberals live and breathe the above mentioned publications, they will follow them like drones, please do your part in understanding and reporting the other side of the argument because there is a compelling one. This paper is smart and style of writing is why I read but it is becoming unbearable as of late. Yes, trump and admin have exaggerated and spread minor falsehoods but NYT/Wash Post have had to revise many front page articles for doing the same damn thing, sadly only a few point this out including the POTUS. Last thing, if we learn more about 'The National Front' it will help with the understanding of Trump and his followers, in my opinion the Euro equivalent is a little easier to digest.
8
" I hope you understand that works the other way as well, they kinda balance each other out"...
Now that you have dug back into your college textbooks, perhaps you can direct your knowledge of statistics toward the three researchers who peer reviewed the study rather than us NYT readers who can draw our own conclusions. I'd suggest you brush up on your grammar and syntax before you do.
Now that you have dug back into your college textbooks, perhaps you can direct your knowledge of statistics toward the three researchers who peer reviewed the study rather than us NYT readers who can draw our own conclusions. I'd suggest you brush up on your grammar and syntax before you do.
3
Is the Bush administration a good enough source for you, because they spent five years investigating this issue and came up with nothing. Nada. Zip. Zilch. Zippo. But they spent a lot of money proving us liberals right!
3
For "critical thinking" without the "pompous narrative", the link to the peer review of the survey at Harvard ....
http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/cces/news/perils-cherry-picking-low-frequ...
You will also be glad to know there is a link to an article in the NYT documenting criminal voter fraud a few posts below.
There are a number of conservative columns on the NYT. Maybe you are falling for the "click bait". The Times has to make a living as well.
http://projects.iq.harvard.edu/cces/news/perils-cherry-picking-low-frequ...
You will also be glad to know there is a link to an article in the NYT documenting criminal voter fraud a few posts below.
There are a number of conservative columns on the NYT. Maybe you are falling for the "click bait". The Times has to make a living as well.
3
Voter fraud is alive and well in New York, as the New York Times reported last month.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/nyregion/builders-tried-to-rig-a-vote...
Now, where else is this going on? We'll have to depend on Preet Bharara, because there's very little in the way of investigating reporting on this subject, and New York's politicians are running for the exits on this subject.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/nyregion/builders-tried-to-rig-a-vote...
Now, where else is this going on? We'll have to depend on Preet Bharara, because there's very little in the way of investigating reporting on this subject, and New York's politicians are running for the exits on this subject.
4
The voter fraud you've cited was over a municipal election in Bloomingberg, NY (population 420), and was localized to a small area. Its motive was financial gain--- through stocking the village board to approve rezoning for a townhouse development. It was discovered and the perpetrators are currently under indictment. Not that it matters, but the local official indicted for the vote rigging, Harold Baird, was a Republican.
Now scale up that tiny abortive vote-rigging scheme to the 3-5 million voters, scattered over hundreds of voting precincts and dozens of states. However improbable, the massive conspiracy imagined by Trump has no better evidence than a few words uttered by the German golfer Bernhard Langer, which he has denied.
Now scale up that tiny abortive vote-rigging scheme to the 3-5 million voters, scattered over hundreds of voting precincts and dozens of states. However improbable, the massive conspiracy imagined by Trump has no better evidence than a few words uttered by the German golfer Bernhard Langer, which he has denied.
11
"the New York Times reported last month."
"there's very little in the way of investigating reporting on this subject"
Huh? Jeez Louise Rich...
"there's very little in the way of investigating reporting on this subject"
Huh? Jeez Louise Rich...
2
The absence of a credible study of voter fraud does not logically imply Trump is incorrect. Were the intent of the Times not to deceive, its logical position would be to demand an investigation of voter fraud. Printing offensive headlines on the front page, calling the President a liar, is no substitute for facts, and these are unknown without an investigation. If there are any congressional districts in which more than say a thousand persons who have voted since they have died or registered when they are not legally entitled to do, then President Trump has a valid point, and given its headlines, the irresponsibility of the Times will have been demonstrated.
10
Investigations are time-consuming and expensive, which is why we don't generally conduct investigations into claims for which there is no evidence - unless the purpose of the investigation isn't to find the truth, but something else, like, say, the dozen or so Republican Congressional investigations of the Benghazi killings.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
13
@ Ecce Homo
You left out the FBI and Hillary--nothing there, right? Save, of course, many thousands of emails not found but existed at one time--sort like "dead voters".
You left out the FBI and Hillary--nothing there, right? Save, of course, many thousands of emails not found but existed at one time--sort like "dead voters".
1
Those making extraordinary claims have the burden of providing evidence that their claims are worth investigating. There is zero credible evidence that massive voter fraud occurred. After other recent elections, extensively-reviewed, professionally-run investigations have shown virtually zero vote rigging. So when the promoters of these unfounded conspiracy theories are shown contradictory evidence debunking their claims but still continue to promote their nonsense, the NYTimes (and all reasonable media) are well within their rights to label these charges as lies and crank ideas.
4
Many thousands (millions?) of people in the country illegally used fake documents when applying for jobs - really good & cheap fake documents thanks to technology. Stolen social security numbers are used for multiple people. As more companies use E-Verify this problem diminishes. However, E-Verify tends to be used only for new job applicants. Existing employees are not checked. Are these people voting? They lied to their employers when applying for jobs. On the other hand, people here illegally tend to steer clear of the law so who knows. But perhaps it's fair to assume they might not be honest re. their citizenship status when asked in a survey.
7
Um. A job pays the bills. Voting gets you nothing. Nobody in their right mind is going to risk jail (and deportation, likely) to add one vote to an election.
If voting paid your bills I'd agree that probably a lot of people would try to do it fraudulently. But it doesn't.
It would have to be some kind of widespread coordinated conspiracy to make it worthwhile, and if such a thing existed, there would be signs of it.
If voting paid your bills I'd agree that probably a lot of people would try to do it fraudulently. But it doesn't.
It would have to be some kind of widespread coordinated conspiracy to make it worthwhile, and if such a thing existed, there would be signs of it.
10
Assuming your claim about widespread falsification of employment applications is true, it hardly implies illegal voting. Employment generates considerable benefits - you know, the whole paycheck thing, and maybe health insurance and a 401(k). Casting an illegal vote generates only the teeny-tiniest of benefits - the extremely remote chance that one illegal vote might change the outcome of an election. Even if it is rational to falsify documents to obtain employment, it is simply not rational to falsify voter registration in order to cast an illegal vote.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
14
My comment does not imply illegal voting - only suggests that many people in this country illegally have the documentation (albeit false) that would allow them to vote. But rest assured, falsification of employment applications is true.
1
Oh, Mr Cohn - here's a link to a list of 700+ recent convictions of "mythical" voter fraud
http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/pdf/VoterFraudCases-8-7-15-Merged...
http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2015/pdf/VoterFraudCases-8-7-15-Merged...
2
Did you read your own link? From my 10 second browse, the vast majority of those convictions are for absentee ballot fraud, duplicate voting or false registrations by people who were legally allowed to vote.
I see less than a handful of cases of non-citizens voting, and in several of them, despite the "convicted," the cases were actually overturned on appeal.
I see less than a handful of cases of non-citizens voting, and in several of them, despite the "convicted," the cases were actually overturned on appeal.
17
If the claims don't hold up fine. But if there is evidence of extensive voter fraud then shouldn't we know so we can enact steps to stop this fraud. We may need a constitution amendment to enact voter ID cards similar to those that all european countries and similar to what our neighbors Canada and Mexico use.
5
One facet never mentioned in the voter fraud fake news: What number of state elections officials sitting at the polls and counting offices, folks that have sworn an oath, would have to be complicit in such a massive fraud as Trump prevaricates about? Most if not all states try to have both parties equally represented on these jobs, so there would be Republicans just a complicit as Democrats if such a fraud occurred.
12
Several cases and testimonies indicate that there may be cases election fraud. A thorough investigation and voter IDs (as required in all other democracies) could restore confidence.
7
Yet previous studies showing no fraud in presidential elections have not instilled confidence in Trump and his supporters.
3
Another delusion from the mad hatter.
6
One can only imagine what voting allegations Trump would be conjuring up if he had LOST the election. Let's close our eyes and dream!
5
They should just offer a reward for anyone that can produce an illegal voter ... similar to the reality show "America's Most Wanted."
6
You have no credibility since you wrote that Clinton had a
A 90 percent chance of winning. Based on the returns in
Detroit there is reason to study the situation.
A 90 percent chance of winning. Based on the returns in
Detroit there is reason to study the situation.
4
Mandatory voter ID. Anything less is just Democrats slumming for fraudulent votes.
7
"Democrats slumming"???...
Why do I hear a veiled racial reference here?? -- Is it because Democrats openly refute Republican effotrs to repeal the Voting Rights Act, which would disproportionately effect African-Americans?
Why do I hear a veiled racial reference here?? -- Is it because Democrats openly refute Republican effotrs to repeal the Voting Rights Act, which would disproportionately effect African-Americans?
10
The real point is there is not real knowledge of how much fraud there is, and we really should find out for sure. It is likely much smaller than Trump claims, but we really don't know.
5
One might respond that we have better things to spend taxpayer dollars on than investigating a problem that we have no indication actually exists.
I mean, we don't know for sure that Azerbaijan isn't going to invade us next summer either. Perhaps we should do an investigation of that as well. There's no evidence of it, but maybe we just haven't looked hard enough!
I mean, we don't know for sure that Azerbaijan isn't going to invade us next summer either. Perhaps we should do an investigation of that as well. There's no evidence of it, but maybe we just haven't looked hard enough!
5
So many down-ballot Republicans must have lost, too. Or did the illegals, unlike an estimated 90% of all voters, ALL split their tickets, voting against Trump and FOR Republicans?
7
This is a blue state phenomenon. So yeah, down ballot Republicans in blue states lost. Nice try
There once was a skeptic of voting
One famous for constantly gloating
Who claimed it fallacious
A claim so audacious
Its pure lunacy is worth noting
One famous for constantly gloating
Who claimed it fallacious
A claim so audacious
Its pure lunacy is worth noting
9
By all means, do the investigation. It will distract trump and his supporters and keep them from focusing on the people's business. The more he obsesses on trivia the better off we are.
4
Right. Voter fraud is a complete myth. Except all that which occurred against Bernie Sanders. ;)
http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-...
http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-...
4
Dear Mr. new York Times;
Can I make a suggestion? please try to prevent yourself from including in your front page articles things like the word "baseless" when you report that Trump claims vote fraud. Let us be, please, the ones deciding whether It is baseless or not. Please simply state what Trump says. Then, maybe, what you can do is go to your Opinion section, and state your opinion and facts (and evidence) of your position if you want, or state it just as an opinion. Furthermore please don't serve specific ideology or special interest. Just inform. The substance here is what the President says. The rest is on us!
kind regards
Bill
Can I make a suggestion? please try to prevent yourself from including in your front page articles things like the word "baseless" when you report that Trump claims vote fraud. Let us be, please, the ones deciding whether It is baseless or not. Please simply state what Trump says. Then, maybe, what you can do is go to your Opinion section, and state your opinion and facts (and evidence) of your position if you want, or state it just as an opinion. Furthermore please don't serve specific ideology or special interest. Just inform. The substance here is what the President says. The rest is on us!
kind regards
Bill
7
Tell that to Fox News. Fact is Trump got himself elected by lying through his teeth. You Trump voters ignored anything negative reported about Trump. Can you not handle the truth? Alt-facts are not facts, and Trump is not above the truth. He does not have a license to lie.
4
How the NY times forgets about the Jill Stein recount in Detroit where votes were cast several times for Hilliary Clinton. I hope Trump audits states
and proves his claim. The NY Times knows there's cheating . Even Obama said he would not prosecute illegals who would vote... Time to stop the Democrat cheating... and do an investigation...As the NY Times has always stated- It's the seriousness of the charge.. Investigate
and proves his claim. The NY Times knows there's cheating . Even Obama said he would not prosecute illegals who would vote... Time to stop the Democrat cheating... and do an investigation...As the NY Times has always stated- It's the seriousness of the charge.. Investigate
7
Exactly. Turns out 37% of the precincts in Detroit recorded more votes than registered voters
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/records-many-v...
Do you think that claim will hold up?
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/records-many-v...
Do you think that claim will hold up?
2
Please read your own links before posting them with incorrect summaries. It doesn't say what you said it says. It doesn't say more votes than registered voters, it says that voting machines recorded more votes than the hand-counters counted.
11
What's the harm in finding out? If it turns out to be untrue, at least we'll know. And please don't say this "endangers our democracy." If it does, show us where the data to support that claim comes from.
5
Richard Nixon upset in 1960 Chicago.
2
Not content to having "won" the election, thanks to by slimmest margin in Electoral College history, Trump then goes on the rampage against not having won the popular vote as well, by claiming it's "rigged", or it's "fraud", or it's because of the "illegals".
Of course, it makes no difference to Trump that there's no concrete evidence to support this claim.
But who needs evidence when you have Ms. Conway lying into the camera for you, and Steve Bannon telling the Press to "shut its mouth".
Anyone who has ever trained as a Poll Worker (I have!), knows that the system may not be foolproof, but it does work when it comes to voter fraud.
And while there might be a few cases where it goes unchallenged, it's simply mind boggling to think that it could possibly result in nearly 3 MILLION "false" votes.
Mr. Trump is just going to have to come up with another excuse.
Of course, it makes no difference to Trump that there's no concrete evidence to support this claim.
But who needs evidence when you have Ms. Conway lying into the camera for you, and Steve Bannon telling the Press to "shut its mouth".
Anyone who has ever trained as a Poll Worker (I have!), knows that the system may not be foolproof, but it does work when it comes to voter fraud.
And while there might be a few cases where it goes unchallenged, it's simply mind boggling to think that it could possibly result in nearly 3 MILLION "false" votes.
Mr. Trump is just going to have to come up with another excuse.
6
The courts found that in 2004 in Washington state gubernatorial election there were 1,678 illegal votes cast (most were not from illegal aliens though).
3
And yet, we still discuss it.
Which only reinforces in the minds of the gullible that there MUST be something to all this.....
Confirmation bias to a degree that a whole lot of our fellow citizens are living in an alternate reality....
Which only reinforces in the minds of the gullible that there MUST be something to all this.....
Confirmation bias to a degree that a whole lot of our fellow citizens are living in an alternate reality....
3
Voter fraud isn't a problem; however low voter turnout and voter suppression have been effective in undermining our democracy.
13
It is perfectly rational for Mr. Trump to insist that without fraud he would have won the popular vote - his every statement shows that he wants to be a president of and for his base and cares nothing about those of us who voted against him. But he can't justify doing this unless those for him are actually a majority. He feels that 3 million fraudulent votes must have happened so he doesn't have to listen to the rest of us.
4
There is evidence that thousands (tens of hundreds of?) of legal votes, mostly from poor and minority districts, go uncounted or are simply discarded due to technical problems with equipment, equipment that is known to be faulty and sent to these districts with intent. The result, of course, is that poor and minority citizens are disenfranchised. It would be a better use of resources to examine those situations instead of this ludicrous claim of non-citizens voting.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2001/07/09/us/study-finds-ballot-problems-are...
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2001/07/09/us/study-finds-ballot-problems-are...
8
who has really looked in to the possible fraud? we are just to take your word for it
4
To quote propaganda Barbie, "Telling the truth is hard". Knowing the truth requires the ability to understand the complex relationship of facts. The current administration seems to be wholly lacking in that regards.
3
Looking for evidence to support Trump's assertion of massive voter fraud by illegal immigrants will not net anything because there is none. His statements are part of the on-going Republican strategy to fix problems that don't exist with laws and policies favoring their party and candidates. With good ol' boy Jeff Sessions as Attorney General already backing off challenges to over reaching voter I.D. laws (see Texas) intended to disenfranchise minorities, they are attempting to solidify their hold on power at the local, state and now federal levels. Understanding this is not that complicated, just very frightening.
5
As estimates go, zero seems a little low.
1
But the claim is that there were millions.
1
Donald Trump says there was massive voting fraud. 3-5 million votes (estimated). Could be even more. Trump won certain critical state votes by mere tens of thousands of voters.
Trump is right. We need an investigation.
However, more importantly, more immediately, WE NEED A NEW ELECTION. Trump is right; he could have been elected in violation of U.S. election laws. He said he would have (and perhaps did) win a majority of voters as well as of electors. He should be entitled to prove this. We should have a fair, legitimate, and binding election. The only remedy: A NEW ELECTION.
Before the election, Trump said numerous times that he might challenge its results. Now, after the election, he supports that challenge by identifying massive election fraud. Let's honor Trump's rights and his empirical analysis: CONDUCT A NEW ELECTION.
Trump is right. We need an investigation.
However, more importantly, more immediately, WE NEED A NEW ELECTION. Trump is right; he could have been elected in violation of U.S. election laws. He said he would have (and perhaps did) win a majority of voters as well as of electors. He should be entitled to prove this. We should have a fair, legitimate, and binding election. The only remedy: A NEW ELECTION.
Before the election, Trump said numerous times that he might challenge its results. Now, after the election, he supports that challenge by identifying massive election fraud. Let's honor Trump's rights and his empirical analysis: CONDUCT A NEW ELECTION.
2
I can tell you why virtually no one commits voter fraud. It's because they are terrified of being caught! Imagine if you are undocumented. You go to register, most likely have show ID, and swear that the information is true. Then, on Election Day, you show up in a line w lots of people, 1 or 2 of whom may know you're illegal and wait your turn to receive a ballot. If you're discovered your life in this country will end and you may never see your family again. There are actually legal immigrants who are intimidated by the process! Now, tell me again that thousands of illegals are voting!
5
For the supporters of Trump, and other conservatives for the past 30 years, the truth is either what they say it is or immaterial if it isn't.
”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” Karl Rove, 2004
”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” Karl Rove, 2004
1
An NBC investigation in Florida found a hundred illegals or non citizens that voted http://www.nbc-2.com/story/16662854/2012/02/Thursday/nbc2-investigates-v...
That was in just a few counties. An investigation in Minnesota found over a thousand felons voted illegally- hence Senator Al Franken . A recent investigation in LA found hundreds of dead who vote in every election.
The thing about voter fraud is, you can't find it if you refuse to look for it. Democrats enable it.
That was in just a few counties. An investigation in Minnesota found over a thousand felons voted illegally- hence Senator Al Franken . A recent investigation in LA found hundreds of dead who vote in every election.
The thing about voter fraud is, you can't find it if you refuse to look for it. Democrats enable it.
3
John Fund's book about Senator Franken was essentially debunked by a Hennepin County investigation that found cause to charge only 47 people with voter fraud.
1
That you can't provide a citation for. "Only" 47 - really
Suggested headline: Fake survey yields fake alarm and (consequently) fake news.
1
Right. Complete myth. Except that which occurred against Bernie Sanders. ;)
http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-...
http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-...
2
Florida found what appeared to be hundreds of legal aliens registered to vote and evidence that some had voted. It asked for help from DHS for information to help establish this and were rebuffed by the Obama administration:
In a recent Orlando Sentinel commentary, Michael T. Morley, an assistant professor at Barry University Law School, argued in favor of requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. According to Morley, "In past years, reporters discovered that hundreds of non-citizens were not only included on the voter registration rolls, but had actually voted in past elections."[1]
Is Morley’s claim accurate?
Morley is correct that reporters, as well as the State of Florida, have discovered hundreds of non-citizens who were registered to vote in Florida — some of whom voted in past elections. However, the actual number of non-citizens who have voted could not be confirmed.
In early 2011, the Florida Department of State (DOS), in partnership with the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV), began a Voter Eligibility Initiative to identify non-citizens listed on voter rolls.[2] The investigation found 2,625 registered voters who were possibly non-citizens. Lists were distributed in April 2012 to county supervisors of elections for verification.[3]
https://ballotpedia.org/Verbatim_fact_check:_Have_non-citizens_voted_in_...
In a recent Orlando Sentinel commentary, Michael T. Morley, an assistant professor at Barry University Law School, argued in favor of requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. According to Morley, "In past years, reporters discovered that hundreds of non-citizens were not only included on the voter registration rolls, but had actually voted in past elections."[1]
Is Morley’s claim accurate?
Morley is correct that reporters, as well as the State of Florida, have discovered hundreds of non-citizens who were registered to vote in Florida — some of whom voted in past elections. However, the actual number of non-citizens who have voted could not be confirmed.
In early 2011, the Florida Department of State (DOS), in partnership with the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV), began a Voter Eligibility Initiative to identify non-citizens listed on voter rolls.[2] The investigation found 2,625 registered voters who were possibly non-citizens. Lists were distributed in April 2012 to county supervisors of elections for verification.[3]
https://ballotpedia.org/Verbatim_fact_check:_Have_non-citizens_voted_in_...
3
An accountant by training, I am absolutely certain that if you do not have internal controls in place, and no audit trail, a few bad actors will exploit weakness. Even with appropriate controls, a couple of bad actors can subvert the system. The most likely way to find an embezzlement? Former spouse/friend annoyed to not be getting a cut of the booty makes an anonymous phone call.
After the 2012 election, a poll worker in Ohio bragged that she had voted three or four times for Obama. The only reason she got caught was because she bragged to the wrong people. Why would anyone assume that this was the only instance of a partisan poll worker exploiting her position?
In person voting fraud is the most labor intensive. Sure I could vote for my next door neighbor who moved away, or for my sister who died but I'm not willing to risk my freedom on for one extra vote for my candidate. But you can't prove I'm the culprit unless you catch me in the act.
By federal law, states cannot require anything more than a utility bill in order to register to vote. In states that allow an online request for an absentee ballot, it is cast with nothing but a comparison to the signature on the application. The opportunity is in absentee voting. I just registered in Florida and it looks to me like I could have registered my dog and then voted for her.
Let's do a post election evaluation and put some actual facts around it rather than academic speculation.
After the 2012 election, a poll worker in Ohio bragged that she had voted three or four times for Obama. The only reason she got caught was because she bragged to the wrong people. Why would anyone assume that this was the only instance of a partisan poll worker exploiting her position?
In person voting fraud is the most labor intensive. Sure I could vote for my next door neighbor who moved away, or for my sister who died but I'm not willing to risk my freedom on for one extra vote for my candidate. But you can't prove I'm the culprit unless you catch me in the act.
By federal law, states cannot require anything more than a utility bill in order to register to vote. In states that allow an online request for an absentee ballot, it is cast with nothing but a comparison to the signature on the application. The opportunity is in absentee voting. I just registered in Florida and it looks to me like I could have registered my dog and then voted for her.
Let's do a post election evaluation and put some actual facts around it rather than academic speculation.
3
You make fair points, but none germane to the actual focus of this debate: the supposed millions of illegal immigrant voters.
3
Democrats have been working for years to eliminate requirements for identification when voting. What other purpose can there be for this except to facilitate voter fraud? Of course many people will reasonably expect that these efforts have had success.
2
In person voter fraud is almost unheard of. It's a lot of work, and a high risk (considering the penalties), for a very low payoff (very unlikely to influence anything). That's not what Democrats are trying to facilitate. The purpose, as is frequently stated, is that a small but non-negligible share of eligible voters lack the forms of ID required in various states.
Of course, we could solve both problems by doing what most countries do and having a universal national ID card. Yet one political party opposes that. It's almost enough to make you think preventing voter fraud isn't their real priority...
Of course, we could solve both problems by doing what most countries do and having a universal national ID card. Yet one political party opposes that. It's almost enough to make you think preventing voter fraud isn't their real priority...
6
If one randomly checked the citizenship of 1% of the voters who actually voted in a given state, it would be easy to determine whether illegal voters had voted, and in what proportion.
In Massachusetts, in 2017 a little over 3 million votes were cast. If one randomly checked 1% of 3 million voters, or about 30,000 voters, for citizenship, there would be an accuracy of .57% (about one-half of 1 percent).
That would imply that if there were few or no non-citizens detected, that result would be very accurate.
The formula for the margin of error is 1 divided by the square root of the number of people in the sample. For states like CA (14.1 mill) TX (8.9 mill) NY (7.7 mill) FL (9.4 mill) the accuracy would be even better than .5% if 1% of the voters were sampled.
For states with small populations, like WY (255,849 voters) or VT (315,067 voters) it might be necessary to sample more than 1% of the voters to get to even 1% accuracy (requiring 10,000 randomly selected voters).
It would be simple enough to generate a projected number of illegals who had voted in each state. In my opinion, such a random survey should put this issue to rest once and for all. If the rate of illegals voting is very low, approaching zero, maybe people will understand that incurring a major expense and effort to weed out "illegals" is not worth the benefit.
The Secretaries of State of almost every state have already stated that they do not believe that illegals voted in any significant numbers.
In Massachusetts, in 2017 a little over 3 million votes were cast. If one randomly checked 1% of 3 million voters, or about 30,000 voters, for citizenship, there would be an accuracy of .57% (about one-half of 1 percent).
That would imply that if there were few or no non-citizens detected, that result would be very accurate.
The formula for the margin of error is 1 divided by the square root of the number of people in the sample. For states like CA (14.1 mill) TX (8.9 mill) NY (7.7 mill) FL (9.4 mill) the accuracy would be even better than .5% if 1% of the voters were sampled.
For states with small populations, like WY (255,849 voters) or VT (315,067 voters) it might be necessary to sample more than 1% of the voters to get to even 1% accuracy (requiring 10,000 randomly selected voters).
It would be simple enough to generate a projected number of illegals who had voted in each state. In my opinion, such a random survey should put this issue to rest once and for all. If the rate of illegals voting is very low, approaching zero, maybe people will understand that incurring a major expense and effort to weed out "illegals" is not worth the benefit.
The Secretaries of State of almost every state have already stated that they do not believe that illegals voted in any significant numbers.
4
Randomization would not rule out the human errors detailed in the article.
4
What this article and this survey confirm is the US has no idea whether there is significant illegal alien voting or not. There is no way to know because many states, including California and Vermont, provide driver's licenses to illegal aliens and many states have zero voter identification requirements.
When we moved in Vermont from one town to another and went to register in Burlington, the clerk literally shielded her eyes and turned away when I offered my "Real ID" driver's license. She said we are not allowed to look at any ID. Just write your name and address on the registration form. Other jurisdictions solely require a utility bill to confirm address. Many illegal aliens also gain fraudulent Social Security #'s in order to work. I live in one of the most liberal areas of one of the most liberal states & I just don't see what the big deal is with requiring voter ID. We have to present ID to get on a plane; to drive a car; etc. The law is that only citizens can vote in federal elections so one should have to provide proof of citizenship.
Also, why would someone who is a noncitizen admit on a public survey that they are a noncitizen? Nate Cohn does not seem to be asking the right questions.
When we moved in Vermont from one town to another and went to register in Burlington, the clerk literally shielded her eyes and turned away when I offered my "Real ID" driver's license. She said we are not allowed to look at any ID. Just write your name and address on the registration form. Other jurisdictions solely require a utility bill to confirm address. Many illegal aliens also gain fraudulent Social Security #'s in order to work. I live in one of the most liberal areas of one of the most liberal states & I just don't see what the big deal is with requiring voter ID. We have to present ID to get on a plane; to drive a car; etc. The law is that only citizens can vote in federal elections so one should have to provide proof of citizenship.
Also, why would someone who is a noncitizen admit on a public survey that they are a noncitizen? Nate Cohn does not seem to be asking the right questions.
9
The point is, there are no facts there to prove Trump wrong. When, in fact, there should be. Hard, indisputable facts, not soft, fess-up surveys. So the question is, why is it this way, and why is Trump highlighting it? Very simple. The lack of good data is directly related to unwillingness to collect it, which then points to states with no voter ID requirement. And surprise, surprise, most of them voted Hillary. All of which suggests willful ignorance of fraudulent voting, with co-conspirators Democrats having the most to gain.
Separately, take California, the nation's leader in both legal and illegal migrants, their fondness for the sanctuary cause, and add the oft-quoted 3 million majority popular vote, all of who California single-handedly supplied, you have the smell of rotten all around.
So the issue is not whether an investigation is needed, but what follows it. Hopefully, a permanent and uniform requirement across the nation for voter ID. That's the result Trump's aiming for and the one his supporters are cheering.
Democrats, meanwhile, are crying foul. Sadly, that only confirms what most suspect, voter fraud is not just widespread, but in their best interests.
The other favorite Dem cause is convict voting. After they've milked that lot, they'll run out of gas. Which is good, because what Democrats really need to get voters, are positions on issues. Not cattle counting.
Separately, take California, the nation's leader in both legal and illegal migrants, their fondness for the sanctuary cause, and add the oft-quoted 3 million majority popular vote, all of who California single-handedly supplied, you have the smell of rotten all around.
So the issue is not whether an investigation is needed, but what follows it. Hopefully, a permanent and uniform requirement across the nation for voter ID. That's the result Trump's aiming for and the one his supporters are cheering.
Democrats, meanwhile, are crying foul. Sadly, that only confirms what most suspect, voter fraud is not just widespread, but in their best interests.
The other favorite Dem cause is convict voting. After they've milked that lot, they'll run out of gas. Which is good, because what Democrats really need to get voters, are positions on issues. Not cattle counting.
12
Trump has laid a trap for them and the media and Democrats have stepped right in it.
1
In fact, since votes are fungible, to attribute Clinton's plurality to one state doesn't hold up. The presence of sanctuary cities isn't probative at all on the question. Further, the study itself that originally suggested that noncitizens may have voted in substantial numbers was essentially admitted to have overstated the case by the person who conducted it. That is a hard, indisputable fact.
Trump is highlighting it because his ego can't stand the fact that someone got more votes than him, so he throws out baseless accusations.
" And surprise, surprise, most of them voted Hillary'
That would be because the voter ID requirements weren't about preserving the vote but about suppressing minority votes that, surprise, surprise, would likely vote for Clinton.
Trump is highlighting it because his ego can't stand the fact that someone got more votes than him, so he throws out baseless accusations.
" And surprise, surprise, most of them voted Hillary'
That would be because the voter ID requirements weren't about preserving the vote but about suppressing minority votes that, surprise, surprise, would likely vote for Clinton.
5
TMK, if this is your idea of critical reasoning, you desperately need a course in logic. The hard evidence you pine for comes from local election officials all over the country, who have the responsibility for protecting against fraud.
3
Here is another example of biased reporting. I am sure there is some reputable person willing to dispute these conclusions. Why? Because they fly in the face of common sense. It is well established that immigrants obtain false identity documents (how else are they being employed and paying SS taxes like they claim?) including driver's licenses. In a number of large liberal states (Calif for one) you can vote if you have a driver's license. Since there is 11M+, illegal immigrants in the country and since one recent candidate for president vowed to send them home, I suspect a significant number had the incentive and the means to vote. And why do Democrats (who benefit from non-citizen voting) fight so hard to prevent more rigorous voter ID laws if it made no difference. To say that there is "zero" non-citizen voting is patently unbelievable and belies some pre-existing bias. How significant it is or isn't is what we need to discover.
10
Any investigation into election fraud should also look at the Interstate Crosscheck database used mostly by Republican Secretaries of State.
It appears to be nothing more than a database of people with common names. SSNs, DOBs, middle initials or names don't have to match.
It's like the felon scrub lists used by Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush that were intentionally wrong. By one count, the lists had a 95% false positive rate. The company doing the work for Florida objected, but Jeb's people insisted the parameters be kept loose.
That should be criminal (if it isn't already).
So look into non-citizens voting, Herr Drumpf, but make sure you also look into the Jim Crow tactics still being used by Republicans. There actually is evidence for that type of election fraud.
It appears to be nothing more than a database of people with common names. SSNs, DOBs, middle initials or names don't have to match.
It's like the felon scrub lists used by Katherine Harris and Jeb Bush that were intentionally wrong. By one count, the lists had a 95% false positive rate. The company doing the work for Florida objected, but Jeb's people insisted the parameters be kept loose.
That should be criminal (if it isn't already).
So look into non-citizens voting, Herr Drumpf, but make sure you also look into the Jim Crow tactics still being used by Republicans. There actually is evidence for that type of election fraud.
12
Figuring out who is a citizen should not be a monumental task. Start with the U.S. birth records. Then look at the naturalization record. Cross check against passport files. Issue ID cards to all citizens and require that they be swiped electronically at voting places. Prosecute people who vote more than once. Delete deceased and convicted felons.
8
If someone votes for a deceased person, there is no way to establish who cast the illegal vote, except in the unlikely possibility that the poll worker is personally acquainted with the either the deceased or with the fraudulent voter. Which makes it essential to get the formerly living off the voter rolls. This is a problem with potential in-person voting fraud when ID is not required. Requiring an ID at least imposes a cost of fabricating the fake ID.
It was reported in Florida during the run up to the election that an employee of a get-out-the vote non-profit was submitting voter registrations for dead people. He got caught because one of the formerly living was the father of someone who was well known in the area and an employee of the registrar of voters recognized the name. When they reviewed the rest of the batch of registrations he had brought in, there were several (under 10) other dead people registrations. But it was only one batch.
Had the fraudulent registrations not been detected, two days later the activist could have gone on-line and requested that absentee ballots be mailed to him. When he voted the ballots, they would be verified by comparing the signature on the ballot envelope to the registration he had prepared. That is one activist voting multiple times in a swing state.
The whole system needs to be examined.
It was reported in Florida during the run up to the election that an employee of a get-out-the vote non-profit was submitting voter registrations for dead people. He got caught because one of the formerly living was the father of someone who was well known in the area and an employee of the registrar of voters recognized the name. When they reviewed the rest of the batch of registrations he had brought in, there were several (under 10) other dead people registrations. But it was only one batch.
Had the fraudulent registrations not been detected, two days later the activist could have gone on-line and requested that absentee ballots be mailed to him. When he voted the ballots, they would be verified by comparing the signature on the ballot envelope to the registration he had prepared. That is one activist voting multiple times in a swing state.
The whole system needs to be examined.
2
One way to resolve doubts would be to issue identity cards to all adult citizens and then require that they be shown and swiped at voting places. Figuring out whom to issue the cards to would not be a monumental talk
3
Jawohl! Show me your papers! All kidding aside, voting by mail as we have in Washington State is much easier and the registration process can take care of the issues of citizenship.
1
If Democrats and the media are so sure there is no voter fraud, then why not encourage this investigation to be performed so that they have definitive proof? "No evidence" doesn't mean much if there's been no investigation. It makes no sense to oppose the investigation if you're sure the results will vindicate your position. I agree it seems unlikely that 3 million people would risk voter fraud, but if Trump is proven wrong by the results of the investigation, one would think that would make Dems and liberals happy.
By opposing the investigation, it makes it seem like they are afraid of the results. Encourage the investigation and then prosecute the results. If there's no fraud, then Trump looks dumb. And if there is, then people need to know and fix the system. It seems bizarre that liberals, who are generally the pro-science, pro-fact group, are opposing an investigation to get the data once and for all so the question can be put to bed. Until it occurs, no one really knows.
By opposing the investigation, it makes it seem like they are afraid of the results. Encourage the investigation and then prosecute the results. If there's no fraud, then Trump looks dumb. And if there is, then people need to know and fix the system. It seems bizarre that liberals, who are generally the pro-science, pro-fact group, are opposing an investigation to get the data once and for all so the question can be put to bed. Until it occurs, no one really knows.
14
This is not the first time an allegation of voter fraud has been made. It has been extensively investigated and there has been not any evidence supporting the claim of widespread voter fraud. According to investigations by the Brennan Center for Justice, voter fraud is very rare. The GAO reported that “no apparent cases of in-person voter impersonation [were] charged by DOJ’s Criminal Division or by U.S. Attorney’s offices anywhere in the United States from 2004 through July 3, 2014.”
Do we really need to re-litigate this question? If we did, would Trump and his allies accept the results, or would they dismiss them as biased and present their own "alternative facts" as if they are truth?
What we should be investigating is attempts to disenfranchise voters, through intimidation, or by restricting when, where, and how a person can vote.
Do we really need to re-litigate this question? If we did, would Trump and his allies accept the results, or would they dismiss them as biased and present their own "alternative facts" as if they are truth?
What we should be investigating is attempts to disenfranchise voters, through intimidation, or by restricting when, where, and how a person can vote.
18
Except we already have the data. Study after study has shown this not to be an issue - less than a thousandth or a percent of the vote. What we don't have is any reason whatsoever to believe what Trump says, except, in some bitter cases, motivation.
4
If I had voted for a dead relative or for my next door neighbor who moved away, how would you know? If I voted absentee in Florida and in person in Tennessee how would you detect it? If 10,000 snowbirds voted in Florida and Minnesota, how would you know, If 10,000 college students voted at college and at their home addresses, how would you know?
If an activist mailed in 1000 voter applications and then requested absentee ballots and voted them, how would you know? Even if you detected after the election that there were 1000 people registered at a single apartment, how would you prosecute anyone? There is a chance that the US Postal employee would think it odd that a single address had 1000 absentee ballots, but if the address were an office building, there's a good chance the mail would be mechanically bundled.
The "intensive investigations" have turned up dead people registered, but did not follow up to see how many of them voted. Partisan operatives who want a particular outcome can produce whatever result they expect.
If an activist mailed in 1000 voter applications and then requested absentee ballots and voted them, how would you know? Even if you detected after the election that there were 1000 people registered at a single apartment, how would you prosecute anyone? There is a chance that the US Postal employee would think it odd that a single address had 1000 absentee ballots, but if the address were an office building, there's a good chance the mail would be mechanically bundled.
The "intensive investigations" have turned up dead people registered, but did not follow up to see how many of them voted. Partisan operatives who want a particular outcome can produce whatever result they expect.
1
Fraudulent voting is real, and very difficult to detect.
We all know the woman in Cincinnati who went on tv in 2008 and announced she voted for Barack Obama 6 times. She was convicted.
Less noticed about 2008 is that in some Chicago precincts, there were more votes cast than eligible voters; that in Columbus, Ohio for some reason busloads of people moved to a handful of residences from Chicago all at the same time just before the registration deadline.
A poll worker I know in Virginia in 2012 witnessed three vanloads of severely mentally handicapped people being "helped" in casting their votes by their Democratic operative caretakers. He also wondered why the parking lot at the polling place had a whole bunch of cars with Maryland plates.
In 2016 in some precincts in Detroit, there were more votes counted than cast.
Years ago, Loretta Sanchez (D-Santa Ana, Cal) beat her Republican opponent, Bob Dornan by a margin less than the number of votes cast by non-citizens.
That voting fraud is hard to catch doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We need 100% ID, 100% citizenship check, and 100% cross jurisdiction check on voting.
We all know the woman in Cincinnati who went on tv in 2008 and announced she voted for Barack Obama 6 times. She was convicted.
Less noticed about 2008 is that in some Chicago precincts, there were more votes cast than eligible voters; that in Columbus, Ohio for some reason busloads of people moved to a handful of residences from Chicago all at the same time just before the registration deadline.
A poll worker I know in Virginia in 2012 witnessed three vanloads of severely mentally handicapped people being "helped" in casting their votes by their Democratic operative caretakers. He also wondered why the parking lot at the polling place had a whole bunch of cars with Maryland plates.
In 2016 in some precincts in Detroit, there were more votes counted than cast.
Years ago, Loretta Sanchez (D-Santa Ana, Cal) beat her Republican opponent, Bob Dornan by a margin less than the number of votes cast by non-citizens.
That voting fraud is hard to catch doesn't mean it doesn't exist. We need 100% ID, 100% citizenship check, and 100% cross jurisdiction check on voting.
13
I can answer the Maryland plate issue.
I live in Massachusetts. New Hampshire is less than a 1 hour drive from where I live. On Election Day, there would be no problem for me to volunteer to drive people to the polls in some town in NH, in which case you would see my car, with its MA plates in a parking lot in NH.
Years ago, when I was a youngster in college, I volunteered to drive voters to the polls. My car had the same state tags as where I volunteered.
I know people from MA who have volunteered to help with get out the vote in Ohio. They vote absentee ballot in MA, so being absent from the state on Election Day is no problem.
State tags on cars proves NOTHING.
I live in Massachusetts. New Hampshire is less than a 1 hour drive from where I live. On Election Day, there would be no problem for me to volunteer to drive people to the polls in some town in NH, in which case you would see my car, with its MA plates in a parking lot in NH.
Years ago, when I was a youngster in college, I volunteered to drive voters to the polls. My car had the same state tags as where I volunteered.
I know people from MA who have volunteered to help with get out the vote in Ohio. They vote absentee ballot in MA, so being absent from the state on Election Day is no problem.
State tags on cars proves NOTHING.
9
Please cite evidence when you make claims like this.
Here's an example:
Fact: Less than 60% of eligible voters voted in 2016. (Source: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout-2016/)
Conclusion: Not enough is being done to get MORE people to vote; actions that make it harder to vote would be counterproductive.
Here's an example:
Fact: Less than 60% of eligible voters voted in 2016. (Source: http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout-2016/)
Conclusion: Not enough is being done to get MORE people to vote; actions that make it harder to vote would be counterproductive.
6
The Detroit example is a non-starter that has already been debunked at snopes.com. So why is it still being repeated?
10
Trump is the ultimate internet "troll"
Successfully distracting everyone day by day.
We need a Congressional update on the investigation into Russian interference in the election.
What's the story? We the People Need the Truth
Successfully distracting everyone day by day.
We need a Congressional update on the investigation into Russian interference in the election.
What's the story? We the People Need the Truth
23
Why are we not accepting the corollary argument to voter fraud by Democrats? If there was voter fraud, can we believe that millions of people voted for Trump, or were those votes manipulated by Republican nefarious actors? If Trump wants to spread "alternate facts," he has to accept that these falsehoods cut both ways.
26
Go to this article and see the numerous reportings of voter fraud.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/01/donald_trump_confronting_vot...
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/01/donald_trump_confronting_vot...
2
Republicans attempt to get voting rules tightened. Democrats fight to get all controls released. Hmm. The districts that have suspicious activity are always in Democrat enclaves.
If a valid investigation is conducted, and Republicans are identified as having voted illegally, they will be indicted along with the Democrats. Republicans are comfortable that they are not sponsoring widespread voter fraud. Democrats are resisting with the fake "voter suppression" narrative because they know that their non-profits are sponsoring fraud. We saw it back before ACORN was disbanded. The ACORN activists didn't evaporate, the morphed into other groups. Strangely enough, the IRS granted those organizations not profit status despite the fact that they were active in politics. The true-the-vote groups were not.
It is not that liberal groups are engaged in some massive conspiracy. If they were, we would know it because the only way two people can keep a secret is if one of them is dead. This is more like a couple of true believers sitting around and thinking out loud. "If we got a list from the post office of relocations...we request an absentee ballot and then vote it." A couple of them do it.
The NYT published affront page editorial that said we have a moral obligation to cast aside journalistic ethics in order to prevent a Trump win. The wacky left is so certain that their way is the only way it becomes plausible that they are prepared to cheat to win.
If a valid investigation is conducted, and Republicans are identified as having voted illegally, they will be indicted along with the Democrats. Republicans are comfortable that they are not sponsoring widespread voter fraud. Democrats are resisting with the fake "voter suppression" narrative because they know that their non-profits are sponsoring fraud. We saw it back before ACORN was disbanded. The ACORN activists didn't evaporate, the morphed into other groups. Strangely enough, the IRS granted those organizations not profit status despite the fact that they were active in politics. The true-the-vote groups were not.
It is not that liberal groups are engaged in some massive conspiracy. If they were, we would know it because the only way two people can keep a secret is if one of them is dead. This is more like a couple of true believers sitting around and thinking out loud. "If we got a list from the post office of relocations...we request an absentee ballot and then vote it." A couple of them do it.
The NYT published affront page editorial that said we have a moral obligation to cast aside journalistic ethics in order to prevent a Trump win. The wacky left is so certain that their way is the only way it becomes plausible that they are prepared to cheat to win.
1
Since Republican tactics consist of trying to enact regulations that discriminate minority voters, such tactics will not be exposed by the type of so-called "investigations" that the GOP advocates. Hmmm, funny coincidence that.
"The districts that have suspicious activity are always in Democrat enclaves."
No, it's the districts that the GOP claims are suspicious, another funny coincidence.
"We saw it back before ACORN was disbanded. "
Given that the O'Keefe videos that led to the disbanding of ACORN would fraudulently edited, it hardly helps your point.
The NYT published no such editorial, that is simply another right-wing "alternate fact".
"The districts that have suspicious activity are always in Democrat enclaves."
No, it's the districts that the GOP claims are suspicious, another funny coincidence.
"We saw it back before ACORN was disbanded. "
Given that the O'Keefe videos that led to the disbanding of ACORN would fraudulently edited, it hardly helps your point.
The NYT published no such editorial, that is simply another right-wing "alternate fact".
4
Voter fraud in some states is an unknown. In California it is illegal to even ask for proof of citizenship. An easily obtained fake ID or a utility bill would be enough to allow a person to cast a ballot.
By making the investigation of voter fraud almost impossible we may never know the extent of how many votes invalid.
We need a federal investigation of states like California just to find out.
By making the investigation of voter fraud almost impossible we may never know the extent of how many votes invalid.
We need a federal investigation of states like California just to find out.
12
Doesn't your name have to be on an electoral register to allow you to vote? How easy is it to fraudulently get your name on the electoral register?
5
We need investigations of southern states with clear, long-term voter suppression of minorities, and we need an investigation of some of the White House staff who are alleged to have treasonously colluded with Russians to corrupt our election.
5
The real voter fraud in the last election was more likely to have been votes not counted, votes miscounted, the ease with which voting machines could be tampered with--no paper trails, internal trailing utilities turned off, machines made to jam when votes were being entered, ways that need to be discussed for getting at the guts of such machines to tamper with recorded information--and well known barriers to an individual's or certain groups' ever getting to vote at all. How did it happen that Trump won the electoral college by such very tiny margins while massively losing the popular vote--and why did the Republicans rush to file legal contests to routine recounts that might have even marginally explored this and other questions about how votes were counted? Another excellent voter fraud question is why the electoral college, a relic of slavery, continues to be used to determine election results long after slavery itself has been outlawed, when it provides no voter protections and only exposes this country to an unfair tyranny of the minority over the majority. Why would anyone doubt that although these areas provide fertile fields for the exploration of voter fraud these will not be the areas explored?
14
You are funny. The electoral college is a relic of the North not valuing slaves. The low population mercantile North did not want the slaves counted at all for purposes of allocating Congressional seats in order to deny political power to the high population agrarian South. Thus the 3/5 compromise and the low population Yankee states getting two Senators per state.
When the Constitution was amended to revalue the 3/5 compromise, the North quickly realized that they had increased the political power of the South. Oops. So they passed laws that denied people who had participated in the government of the Confederacy access to elective office. Reconstruction lasted about 10 years, long enough new Southern leadership to develop, with increased political power thanks to the North.
Liberals have never gotten over their blunder. The rules they established to protect themselves from the tyranny of the majority now reduce their power.
We are a republic, with 50 states and DC. Trump won a plurality in 30 states, which contain 56% of the population. Hillary won a plurality in 20 states plus DC, which contain 44% of the population.
Neither got a majority. Hillary got 47.9%. That the over vote in California did not determine the election does not reflect a tyranny of the minority. The "massive loss" of the popular vote all occurred in California, a state in which neither candidate campaigned, although Hillary did collect $$$, with which she hoped to buy the election.
When the Constitution was amended to revalue the 3/5 compromise, the North quickly realized that they had increased the political power of the South. Oops. So they passed laws that denied people who had participated in the government of the Confederacy access to elective office. Reconstruction lasted about 10 years, long enough new Southern leadership to develop, with increased political power thanks to the North.
Liberals have never gotten over their blunder. The rules they established to protect themselves from the tyranny of the majority now reduce their power.
We are a republic, with 50 states and DC. Trump won a plurality in 30 states, which contain 56% of the population. Hillary won a plurality in 20 states plus DC, which contain 44% of the population.
Neither got a majority. Hillary got 47.9%. That the over vote in California did not determine the election does not reflect a tyranny of the minority. The "massive loss" of the popular vote all occurred in California, a state in which neither candidate campaigned, although Hillary did collect $$$, with which she hoped to buy the election.
1
The Electoral College was a function of elitist Founders who feared the excesses of democracy. The Connecticut Compromise is what gave each state two Senators and it had nothing to do with the 3/5ths compromise, it was a compromise between large and small states.
The laws proscribing ex-Confederates were a function of both proscribing traitors and ensuring that free blacks could get elected to office. The Equal Protection Clause didn't revise the 3/5ths Compromise but rendered it irrelevant.
The laws proscribing ex-Confederates were a function of both proscribing traitors and ensuring that free blacks could get elected to office. The Equal Protection Clause didn't revise the 3/5ths Compromise but rendered it irrelevant.
2
Because of Trump's lie about millions of fraudulent votes, public attention is now focused on this fallacy. That is well and good, except it serves to divert attention and focus off the much more serious and prevalent problem of voter suppression. Trump and the GOP hope to keep the debate framed on how much voting fraud there is. It works to their advantage.
20
It is also distracting from the fact that despite the slow walking of Democrat Senators, his appointees are being confirmed. It's kinda like Obama agitating about stupid things to distract from how poorly his policies were working. In contrast, Trump is working through reversing the executive actions of Obama while the left is ranting over illegal voting and injustice of the electoral college.
The good thing about having a lifelong Democrat as the Republican President is that he hasn't forgotten Democrat techniques. Make some outrageous statement and then do what you want.
Folks, wake up. Quit acting like the federal government is the only government in the country. Develop policies and leaders at the state level and provide some evidence that the Democrat Party is not only the party of California and New York. See if you can come up with a Presidential candidate for 2020 who is under the age of, say, 69.
You cannot continue to ignore the 56% living in flyover country. Trump was not voted in by the 10% of the population that lives in rural counties. He was voted in by educated, hard working professionals and by the working class people in the blue wall states that Democrats have always taken for granted, and that Hillary laughed at with her elite donors. And the 10%.
BTW, Republicans only want to suppress illegal voting.
The good thing about having a lifelong Democrat as the Republican President is that he hasn't forgotten Democrat techniques. Make some outrageous statement and then do what you want.
Folks, wake up. Quit acting like the federal government is the only government in the country. Develop policies and leaders at the state level and provide some evidence that the Democrat Party is not only the party of California and New York. See if you can come up with a Presidential candidate for 2020 who is under the age of, say, 69.
You cannot continue to ignore the 56% living in flyover country. Trump was not voted in by the 10% of the population that lives in rural counties. He was voted in by educated, hard working professionals and by the working class people in the blue wall states that Democrats have always taken for granted, and that Hillary laughed at with her elite donors. And the 10%.
BTW, Republicans only want to suppress illegal voting.
BTW, Republicans want to suppress minority voting because minorities tend to vote Democrat. Further, rural voters, who have disproportionate weight in the EC, did trend for Trump.
1
Liberal may be a pejorative in Tennessee but it isn't elsewhere. It's the Democratic Party, by the way, also.
2
One of Trump's arguments for voter fraud has to do with dead people on the rolls. I must confess to being a party to this "fraud." My mother died in 2011. I still get cards telling at her last official address, mine, where to vote. I recently called the Board of Elections to ask them to take her off the rolls. They said I had to send a letter and a death certificate. I said I don't have any more. The person then said fagetaboutit, just ignore the card.
I don't know any undocumented person who would risk deportation just to give one vote that would never change an election (also assuming they do a good job at forging signatures). On the other hand, if Trump can demonstrate that actually dead people actually voted, "the voting dead," then we have something there. And ask my mother how she's doing since shuffling off this mortal coil.
I don't know any undocumented person who would risk deportation just to give one vote that would never change an election (also assuming they do a good job at forging signatures). On the other hand, if Trump can demonstrate that actually dead people actually voted, "the voting dead," then we have something there. And ask my mother how she's doing since shuffling off this mortal coil.
25
In California, absentee voters have to sign their ballot envelope when they return it and their signature is compared to the signature on file. It's a time-consuming process, which is why election officials get a head start on early absentee ballot returns (which will be the first thing reported at 8pm on election night even with 0% precincts reporting), but last minute absentee ballot returns can take days or weeks to finish processing. While there's a chance that a relative of a deceased voter could forge their signatures, that assumes the relative could do a decent forgery. As I understand it, eventually voting rolls are compared against the Death Index to clean things up. But I imagine the odds of someone impersonating a dead person and showing up to vote are vanishingly remote (signatures are compared on the spot in addition to asking for address to verify), and while vote-by-mail impersonation of a dead person is easier, I bet that too is pretty rare. However, our voting turnout rates are artificially deflated by dead people still being on the rolls for a time but not showing up to vote.
5
How would anyone get your mother's name and why would they risk trying to use it?
Look up the following word: sarcasm.
1
Much depends on who - which agency - is tapped to conduct this investigation. It's initiation is politicized, so it will be vital for the investigation itself to be conducted by career civil servants and the role of political appointees to be carefully limited and disclosed. Methodology and findings must be transparent.
If it happens at all. Trump may just be hoping for some minions to talk to a few more "golf buddies" and bring back flawed anecdotes that will justify further disenfranchisement.
If it happens at all. Trump may just be hoping for some minions to talk to a few more "golf buddies" and bring back flawed anecdotes that will justify further disenfranchisement.
18
Career civil servants are clearly an unbiased group --- and a voting block for democrats.
It is illogical to believe that there is voter fraud on any massive scale.
There is no real incentive for an individual to commit voter fraud, as there is rarely any prospect that a single vote will sway an election result (which is, after all, the point of engaging in the fraud). The individual weighing whether to commit voter fraud is in the position of deciding whether to risk engaging in criminal conduct with no purposeful result. Very few people will want to run that kind of a risk.
The only way for voter fraud to have any probability of success is for thousands of individuals to band together in a common scheme. However, there is zero probability that any such common scheme -- involving thousands -- would go undetected (and unpunished).
Voter fraud is rare because people do not generally engage in criminal conduct with no prospect of reward.
There is no real incentive for an individual to commit voter fraud, as there is rarely any prospect that a single vote will sway an election result (which is, after all, the point of engaging in the fraud). The individual weighing whether to commit voter fraud is in the position of deciding whether to risk engaging in criminal conduct with no purposeful result. Very few people will want to run that kind of a risk.
The only way for voter fraud to have any probability of success is for thousands of individuals to band together in a common scheme. However, there is zero probability that any such common scheme -- involving thousands -- would go undetected (and unpunished).
Voter fraud is rare because people do not generally engage in criminal conduct with no prospect of reward.
90
Agreed. If you want to fraudulently influence an election, it's a lot more efficient to stop citizens who oppose you from voting through a variety of voter suppression strategies (voter roll purges, caging, etc.) than to get people to vote illegally, whether it be noncitizens voting or people trying to vote multiple times in different jurisdictions or even different states.
19
This is the logical, correct answer, but I am afraid it will fall on deaf ears. To some, voter fraud feels true which is more important than actually being true.
4
and you know this how?
1
As a Latina business owner and Independent Precinct Director once and for all, let's get this investigation underway so we can once again trust our electoral process. This is one issue I do agree with Trump on. Do it, let's see it and let's fix it where necessary,
13
Cannot fix a non-problem. Movin' on....
3
it needs fixed fact, lets do it if even to prove it wrong
2
Voting in a federal election as a noncitizen is a criminal act - people have in fact been convicted of voting and then deported. Even permanent residents, long-term absolutely legal residents of the US have been convicted and deported for voting in an election in which they were not qualified to vote. Immigrants talk to one another about the things that are likely to result in deportation, which often causes terrible pain and tears apart families. Add to that that the highest number of undocumented immigrants live in states like New York and California, where the citizens could be counted on to vote for Hillary, and Trump's claims make no sense at all.
It is, of course, quite possible that citizens who have moved across state lines might be registered to vote in two states - though I doubt they often actually vote in both. And dead people on the rolls? Quite possible again, but they are probably the least likely to vote of anyone!
I suspect that what Mr. Trump is really after is more restrictive laws on who can register to vote, that will diminish the Democratic Party's membership and enhance the Republicans'. I suspect he is already looking toward ways to make the impossible - his re-election - possible.
It is, of course, quite possible that citizens who have moved across state lines might be registered to vote in two states - though I doubt they often actually vote in both. And dead people on the rolls? Quite possible again, but they are probably the least likely to vote of anyone!
I suspect that what Mr. Trump is really after is more restrictive laws on who can register to vote, that will diminish the Democratic Party's membership and enhance the Republicans'. I suspect he is already looking toward ways to make the impossible - his re-election - possible.
57
Yes, the prez may really be after diminishment of the Democratic vote. But, what he is really, really after is protecting his vanity.
4
But he is going to win again, because democrats still have no clue why they lost and are still calling everyone names.
and i heard they may run hillary again, now that is funny
and i heard they may run hillary again, now that is funny
2
What would lead a person to put themselves in such jeopardy? Not much.
I really, really like candidate A so much that I'm going to ruin my life by going to jail. Or I'm going to be fined a large amount of money. Trump's argument is that there are 5,000,000 such people, and they all voted for Hillary.
I keep on waiting for them to produce even one case. I think it's true that our election system is old and clunky. If ATM machines are secure and work well, we should have a way of letting people register once. They will be able to vote once. It would solve a lot of problems.