opcorn:Anyone else want to take a crack at it? Same rules apply.
From the no-evidence-needed right-wing battalion: "We want voter IDs used because it seems to prevent minorities from voting, and we'll use 'fraud' as an excuse even though it's virtually non-existent."
Of course, limiting voting times and taking polling booths out of inner city areas is always an option to exclude minority votes. The GOP is targeting swing states in an effort to rob minorities of their votes.
In Ohio and Wisconsin, the GOP passed policy that limits voting time -- especially weekend voting (which low-income and black voters prefer). In fact, there is a traidtion in Ohio where black church-goers would swing by polling booths by the busload to vote.
Republican Ohio Secretary of State, Jon Husted, is trying to end voting on Sundays before November's general election. Obviously, voting on Sundays is harmless, so Husted has no rational explanation for this goal because he can't admit that it's to prevent black people from voting.
Are Republicans cheating enough for them to take the Senate in November?
Ah, I get it. Setting the stage for why the Dems could lose in November. It wouldn't have anything to do with: 1-anti obamacare backlash among voters (Republicans, AND Democrats); and/or 2-the traditionally low voter turnout by Democrats for off cycle elections.
Not bad, start the damage control ahead of time. "Those Republicans have cheated their way into the Senate. Must be voter fraud." And it the Republicans are not successful, it will be that "the voters weren't fooled by the nasty Republican tactics." So transparent. Spin either way you look at it.
Stay tuned all, stay tuned.
Jjz is the master of spin. It's his response to anything that contrasdictshis beliefs.Typical douchebag response!
Why is it all you seem capable of doing is accusing dems of "spin" when you can't defend the slimebag tactics your team needs to use to skew election results in their favor? Obviously YOUR team can't win on their own merits, so they scrape their scumbag methods from the bottom of the barrel, even resorting to throwing their own constituents under the proverbial bus. Whatever it takes to win, right?!?
What's the explanation for the fraud? From the article: "The report confirms what the State Election Commission had found after preliminarily examining some of the allegations: The so-called votes by dead people were the result of clerical errors or mistaken identities.Dead people voting would be ended by voter ID's. Here are two articles that admit to this happening in California and S Car.:
"It turns out the claims of 953 votes by dead people actually involved not one election but 74 elections over a seven-year period."
Source- The case of
^^^ though this article set out to debunk claims that 900 dead people voted in the one election, it still admits that it did happen over a longer period if time.
"A closer look at the data revealed that some of the dead people were not only registered, but somehow, even voted, several years after their death. Sometimes, clerks say the mistake can purely be a clerical error, such as a misplaced signature or an outdated registration list that hadn't been purged. Other times, though, the voting turns out to be fraud, clerks say, where family members vote on their dead relatives' behalf."
In this one, investigations are being done as to why there are so many dead voters still registered, but it is noted that the 25,000 number is still only .2% of the total voting population. One of the more important notes is that the government actually relies on the public to inform them when people have died. In this case NBC actually helped out by doing a cross check with the Social Security Administration's Master Death File and found 25,000 questionable registered voters. These voters have been flagged so advance notice can be had for future elections and further investigation can purge the people on that list who are actually dead (and don't merely share the same name, birthdate, etc.) from the voting registry.
Same deal here with the clerical errors: 'Investigators tell the paper they don't consider the discrepancy fraudulent; the number of votes attributed to deceased voters is too small and their votes are spread out over more than two dozen elections.
From the worker's own mouth: "Mitchell said he scammed the system because, "I needed money; I had to support my family and I was new to the area. It was the only job I had."This is interesting too though not vote fraud but registration fraud. Acorn worker admits actively perpetrating election fraud. He registered 2000 people who didn't even exist. No one argues that registration fraud doesn't exist. Therefore ID laws are necessary because imaginary people cannot vote if an ID is required.
Ex-ACORN worker: 'I paid the price' for voter registration fraud - CNN.com
Read beyond the headlines. This isn't even a GOP vs Democrat thing. This is about how journalists suck people in with misleading headlines and early info, then come clean later in the article with the actual facts. You have to be a bit more discerning and rely A LOT LESS on confirmation bias to get the facts.Took me 5 minutes to find thousands of examples. You guys need to start broadening your information sources because you are either clearly idiots or just love being lied too.
I hope you're prepared to see all your excellent research just dismissed as "spin".Figured I'd a little bit more in depth, seeing as how no one else has stepped up and I'm no longer posting from my cell phone.
What's the explanation for the fraud? From the article: "The report confirms what the State Election Commission had found after preliminarily examining some of the allegations: The so-called votes by dead people were the result of clerical errors or mistaken identities.
For instance, sometimes a son had the same name as a deceased father, and poll workers mixed up a dead father with a living son. (This happened 92 times in the initial probe, and then further investigation found seven more examples.)
In 56 cases, there was bad data matching, in which the DMV records had the Social Security of a dead person associated with a living voter. The living voter with a different name and birth date properly cast a ballot. Thirty-two votes attributed to dead people were simply the result of too-sensitive scanners.
In one case, someone cast an absentee ballot before dying; their vote still counts under the law. In two other cases, people requested an absentee ballot, but died before returning it, so no harm was done. In other cases, the wrong voter was marked as having cast a vote, and then the marks were not completely erased. There were several other types of clerical errors, too numerous to mention. In the end, just five votes remained unresolved after extensive investigation."
In this one, investigations are being done as to why there are so many dead voters still registered, but it is noted that the 25,000 number is still only .2% of the total voting population. One of the more important notes is that the government actually relies on the public to inform them when people have died. In this case NBC actually helped out by doing a cross check with the Social Security Administration's Master Death File and found 25,000 questionable registered voters. These voters have been flagged so advance notice can be had for future elections and further investigation can purge the people on that list who are actually dead (and don't merely share the same name, birthdate, etc.) from the voting registry.
Nice to see that anyone who is interested in the integrity of the system and has some resources can help out. You know, by fixing irregularities in the system rather than flying off the handle about them. ::Looks sidelong at FOX::
Same deal here with the clerical errors: 'Investigators tell the paper they don't consider the discrepancy fraudulent; the number of votes attributed to deceased voters is too small and their votes are spread out over more than two dozen elections.
County elections commissioner Bill Biamonte said simple clerical errors make it seem as if the dead are voting. For example, a person voting could accidentally sign their name next to a dead person's name rather than their own in a poll registry book.
"Theres no malice, no evil intentions behind this," said Biamonte."Just election day workers or voters making mistakes." '
From the worker's own mouth: "Mitchell said he scammed the system because, "I needed money; I had to support my family and I was new to the area. It was the only job I had."
Mitchell said ACORN threatened to close the office if he and his team didn't meet their quota to register 13 to 20 voters a day. So, without consulting their supervisors, he said, they came up with a plan.
"We came up with the idea: Let's make fraudulent cards. I tell my crew, 'I don't care how you get 'em, just get 'em,' " Mitchell recalled.
Later in the article: 'But University of Washington law professor Eric Schnapper says the idea of fake cards turning into real votes is a myth.
"There are no known instances of fictitious people actually voting," Schnapper said. "You look at some of the names: Mickey Mouse. Dr. Seuss. Mickey Mouse only votes in Disneyland. He's not going to show up at a critical precinct in West Virginia or North Carolina."
..." Schnapper said there's no evidence that any worker intended to commit voter fraud and actually take those names, produce phony identification and vote on Election Day.
Threats of criminal prosecution may scare some groups into closing voter registration drives, according to Schnapper. It could scare actual voters away from the polls as well, he said, "and that really does affect the outcomes of the election."
A report from the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University Law School supports his claim. Researchers reviewed voter fraud claims across the country and found that most were caused by technical glitches, clerical errors or mistakes made by voters. One other finding: A person is more likely to be struck by lightning than to impersonate another voter at the polls."
Read beyond the headlines. This isn't even a GOP vs Democrat thing. This is about how journalists suck people in with misleading headlines and early info, then come clean later in the article with the actual facts. You have to be a bit more discerning and rely A LOT LESS on confirmation bias to get the facts.
On the note of not getting sucked in by bad journalism, I'll let this guy explain some reasons why not too. Hopefully he can make you laugh in the process too. 5 Disturbing Reasons Not to Trust the News (From a Reporter) | Cracked.com
Figured I'd a little bit more in depth, seeing as how no one else has stepped up and I'm no longer posting from my cell phone.
What's the explanation for the fraud? From the article: "The report confirms what the State Election Commission had found after preliminarily examining some of the allegations: The so-called votes by dead people were the result of clerical errors or mistaken identities.
For instance, sometimes a son had the same name as a deceased father, and poll workers mixed up a dead father with a living son. (This happened 92 times in the initial probe, and then further investigation found seven more examples.)
In 56 cases, there was bad data matching, in which the DMV records had the Social Security of a dead person associated with a living voter. The living voter with a different name and birth date properly cast a ballot. Thirty-two votes attributed to dead people were simply the result of too-sensitive scanners.
In one case, someone cast an absentee ballot before dying; their vote still counts under the law. In two other cases, people requested an absentee ballot, but died before returning it, so no harm was done. In other cases, the wrong voter was marked as having cast a vote, and then the marks were not completely erased. There were several other types of clerical errors, too numerous to mention. In the end, just five votes remained unresolved after extensive investigation."
In this one, investigations are being done as to why there are so many dead voters still registered, but it is noted that the 25,000 number is still only .2% of the total voting population. One of the more important notes is that the government actually relies on the public to inform them when people have died. In this case NBC actually helped out by doing a cross check with the Social Security Administration's Master Death File and found 25,000 questionable registered voters. These voters have been flagged so advance notice can be had for future elections and further investigation can purge the people on that list who are actually dead (and don't merely share the same name, birthdate, etc.) from the voting registry.
Nice to see that anyone who is interested in the integrity of the system and has some resources can help out. You know, by fixing irregularities in the system rather than flying off the handle about them. ::Looks sidelong at FOX::
Same deal here with the clerical errors: 'Investigators tell the paper they don't consider the discrepancy fraudulent; the number of votes attributed to deceased voters is too small and their votes are spread out over more than two dozen elections.
County elections commissioner Bill Biamonte said simple clerical errors make it seem as if the dead are voting. For example, a person voting could accidentally sign their name next to a dead person's name rather than their own in a poll registry book.
"Theres no malice, no evil intentions behind this," said Biamonte."Just election day workers or voters making mistakes." '
From the worker's own mouth: "Mitchell said he scammed the system because, "I needed money; I had to support my family and I was new to the area. It was the only job I had."
Mitchell said ACORN threatened to close the office if he and his team didn't meet their quota to register 13 to 20 voters a day. So, without consulting their supervisors, he said, they came up with a plan.
"We came up with the idea: Let's make fraudulent cards. I tell my crew, 'I don't care how you get 'em, just get 'em,' " Mitchell recalled.
Later in the article: 'But University of Washington law professor Eric Schnapper says the idea of fake cards turning into real votes is a myth.
"There are no known instances of fictitious people actually voting," Schnapper said. "You look at some of the names: Mickey Mouse. Dr. Seuss. Mickey Mouse only votes in Disneyland. He's not going to show up at a critical precinct in West Virginia or North Carolina."
..." Schnapper said there's no evidence that any worker intended to commit voter fraud and actually take those names, produce phony identification and vote on Election Day.
Threats of criminal prosecution may scare some groups into closing voter registration drives, according to Schnapper. It could scare actual voters away from the polls as well, he said, "and that really does affect the outcomes of the election."
A report from the nonpartisan Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University Law School supports his claim. Researchers reviewed voter fraud claims across the country and found that most were caused by technical glitches, clerical errors or mistakes made by voters. One other finding: A person is more likely to be struck by lightning than to impersonate another voter at the polls."
Read beyond the headlines. This isn't even a GOP vs Democrat thing. This is about how journalists suck people in with misleading headlines and early info, then come clean later in the article with the actual facts. You have to be a bit more discerning and rely A LOT LESS on confirmation bias to get the facts.
On the note of not getting sucked in by bad journalism, I'll let this guy explain some reasons why not too. Hopefully he can make you laugh in the process too. 5 Disturbing Reasons Not to Trust the News (From a Reporter) | Cracked.com
Where are those thousands of examples?Took me 5 minutes to find thousands of examples. You guys need to start broadening your information sources because you are either clearly idiots or just love being lied too.
Lol, do you actually read these articles before posting them as "proof"?
First article- concludes that the votes which were interspersed over 74 elections (already disqualified, less than 57 votes in one) were not intentional fraud, but confirmed clerical errors.
Second article- clerical errors.
Third article- clerical errors.
Fourth Article - guy made up people to register do he could meet ACORN's registration quotas. It is even confirmed that there is NO POSSIBLE WAY these phony registration could ever turn into votes.
Try reading the whole article rather than the headlines. I'll be waiting.
No other attempts in 3 days? C'mon, isn't voter fraud a serious epidemic? So much so that millions of people being possibly disenfranchised is a small price to pay? Perhaps something besides the only 10 proven cases of someone committing this crime between the year 2000 and 2012? Indictments? Court Cases? Names? Anything? Didn't you say...
Where are those thousands of examples?
Those "thousands of examples" exist on sites like "liberalsareevil.com", "democratsalwayslie.com", and "republicansaretheonlyrealamericans.com" and also only if facts don't matter:wink:No other attempts in 3 days? C'mon, isn't voter fraud a serious epidemic? So much so that millions of people being possibly disenfranchised is a small price to pay? Perhaps something besides the only 10 proven cases of someone committing this crime between the year 2000 and 2012? Indictments? Court Cases? Names? Anything? Didn't you say...
Where are those thousands of examples?
I know that a lot of you right wing wingnuts aren't too bright but aren't you at least smart enough to realize that anyone who read the article you misquoted would know that you lied?I apparently read the articles better than you or perhaps I read them instead of only seeing what I wanted to see.
From the second Article- "A closer look at the data revealed that some of the dead people were not only registered, but somehow, even voted, several years after their death. Sometimes, clerks say the mistake can purely be a clerical error, such as a misplaced signature or an outdated registration list that hadn't been purged. Other times, though, the voting turns out to be fraud, clerks say, where family members vote on their dead relatives' behalf.
and
However, in at least one other case NBC Bay Area uncovered, Weir suspects something else could be afoot. Though he wouldn't be specific, he referred one of the cases to the district attorney for a potential fraud investigation.
And then there was this treasonous cunt who admitted doing it.
Cincinnati poll worker charged with voting half dozen times in November | Fox News
In a nation of roughly 150 million voters, the belief that voter fraud doesn't exist when there are clear examples of it occurring ^^^ and people admitting to doing it ^^^ takes stupidity and/or dishonesty to a whole new level.
I don't suspect that any number of examples will be enough to convince those who have an aversion for truth when it stands in the way of furthering their political agendas. Democrats depend on fraud in order to win election. Despicable creature you all are.
I know that a lot of you right wing wingnuts aren't too bright but aren't you at least smart enough to realize that anyone who read the article you misquoted would know that you lied?
The case of ‘zombie’ voters in South Carolina - The Washington Post
Shwedo, who at the time acknowledged that at least some of the allegations could be the result of clerical errors, did not respond to a request for comment. (Update: Shwedo said he has not yet read the report but there was probable cause to believe there were voting discrepancies. For us to not have an investigation would have been irresponsible.)
The initial claims reported to the Attorney Generals Office were alarming, said J. Mark Powell, communications director for Wilson. They were not vague allegations, but contained specific information. The states chief prosecutor cannot stand by when presented with such a situation. So SLED was asked to investigate this matter. We appreciate SLEDs hard work in preparing this report.
Now where in the article does the following statement appear?
"Other times, though, the voting turns out to be fraud, clerks say, where family members vote on their dead relatives' behalf."
I will admit my error in going by the quote you posted. Funny how the same phrase is used in two different articles. I still stand by my position though that the numbers of suspected cases doesn't justify disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Even in your article it shows that the number is extremely small.Awesome. LOVE LOVE LOVE the fact that you insult my intelligence and call me a lie BECAUSE you cant count. I said SECOND article. its the 4th paragraph down dipshit. Here Ill post it again for you and make it real easy:
Dead And Still Voting | NBC Bay Area
I still stand by my position though that the numbers of suspected cases doesn't justify disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of innocent people. .