Voter Fraud----April 23 Reports

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Yesterday it was Alabama, today it is Maryland and Virginia. How can there be so much in these three states alone when many here said it was and being ballyhooed by Republicans to their advantage. What rock are ya'll under now?

Thank you Fox News. If it wasn't for you we would never hear about it

http://www.foxnews.c...nd-group-finds/

[TheBlueVue 177]

Yesterday it was Alabama, today it is Maryland and Virginia. How can there be so much in these three states alone when many here said it was and being ballyhooed by Republicans to their advantage. What rock are ya'll under now?

Thank you Fox News. If it wasn't for you we would never hear about it

http://www.foxnews.c...nd-group-finds/

where is icanthearyou to spin this? Surely, he'd figure out a way to discredit these findings.

[AUcivE09 582]

Anytime "discrimination" is injected you know something is up. This is just more proof of what we already knew and some chose to ignore.

Also - I believe it is California, has laws preventing voting stations from asking for ID - yet, they are requiring ID for potential voters to get in to see the new electronic voting machines and learn to use them. Funny, huh?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

California is another planet. You have to live there awhile to understand it.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

This is NOT voter fraud. Like the story from Alabama, this is about errors in the voter registration roles.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

ICHY....spin it however makes you feel good about it.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

That is not spin PT. Read both articles again. Where is the fraud? Update the voter rolls and you have no story. Just be sure that nothing like this happens: http://cjonline.com/news/2014-04-09/more-4800-voters-incorrectly-canceled-voter-roles-southeast-kansas

Or, what happened in Florida. You know, 180,000 identified as ineligible and, later that number becomes 85 and, even some of those 85 are actually eligible. Thank you Gov. Scott for spending millions to accomplish nothing. Not to mention the way the Florida GOP distributes voting equipment so that those in Orlando, Tampa, and Miami have six hour wait times to vote.

You know as well as I do that this isn't about integrity or fairness in the voting process. This is about politics. This is about gaining a political advantage.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

So you are opposed to legit, unbiased updating of voter rolls where it is OBVIOUSLY needed and assuring that only legit voters are allowed to vote?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

So you are opposed to legit, unbiased updating of voter rolls where it is OBVIOUSLY needed and assuring that only legit voters are allowed to vote?

I think the voter rolls should be kept current. However, if they are being purged by a party with a political motive and. there is no identified problem, then no.

[Tigermike 3,008]

So you are opposed to legit, unbiased updating of voter rolls where it is OBVIOUSLY needed and assuring that only legit voters are allowed to vote?

I think the voter rolls should be kept current. However, if they are being purged by a party with a political motive and. there is no identified problem, then no.

And if that clean up is stopped by a political party with an agenda, what then?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

So you are opposed to legit, unbiased updating of voter rolls where it is OBVIOUSLY needed and assuring that only legit voters are allowed to vote?

I think the voter rolls should be kept current. However, if they are being purged by a party with a political motive and. there is no identified problem, then no.

And if that clean up is stopped by a political party with an agenda, what then?

Do you have a link or is it a hypothetical question?

[Tigermike 3,008]

So you are opposed to legit, unbiased updating of voter rolls where it is OBVIOUSLY needed and assuring that only legit voters are allowed to vote?

I think the voter rolls should be kept current. However, if they are being purged by a party with a political motive and. there is no identified problem, then no.

And if that clean up is stopped by a political party with an agenda, what then?

Do you have a link or is it a hypothetical question?

Why would I need a link? Dems are the ones whining about cleaning up voter records aren't they. Dems are the ones whining and complaining about voter ID's aren't they? They must have an agenda.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

So you are opposed to legit, unbiased updating of voter rolls where it is OBVIOUSLY needed and assuring that only legit voters are allowed to vote?

I think the voter rolls should be kept current. However, if they are being purged by a party with a political motive and. there is no identified problem, then no.

And if that clean up is stopped by a political party with an agenda, what then?

Do you have a link or is it a hypothetical question?

Why would I need a link? Dems are the ones whining about cleaning up voter records aren't they. Dems are the ones whining and complaining about voter ID's aren't they? They must have an agenda.

Oh, I see. It was a rhetorical, hypothetical question.

To clarify, a partisan political effort that promotes voter fraud is bad. A partisan political effort to deny legitimate voters the right to vote is bad. Wasting taxpayer money while attempting to do either makes it even worse.

[Tigermike 3,008]

So you are opposed to legit, unbiased updating of voter rolls where it is OBVIOUSLY needed and assuring that only legit voters are allowed to vote?

I think the voter rolls should be kept current. However, if they are being purged by a party with a political motive and. there is no identified problem, then no.

And if that clean up is stopped by a political party with an agenda, what then?

Do you have a link or is it a hypothetical question?

Why would I need a link? Dems are the ones whining about cleaning up voter records aren't they. Dems are the ones whining and complaining about voter ID's aren't they? They must have an agenda.

Oh, I see. It was a rhetorical, hypothetical question.

To clarify, a partisan political effort that promotes voter fraud is bad. A partisan political effort to deny legitimate voters the right to vote is bad. Wasting taxpayer money while attempting to do either makes it even worse.

Provide one example of any legitimate voter being denied the right to vote because of not having proper ID.

[AUFAN78 3,890]

This is NOT voter fraud. Like the story from Alabama, this is about errors in the voter registration roles.

164 people intentionally voted twice and that is not voter fraud? Like they had no idea what they were doing? Are you serious?

[homersapien 11,354]

So you are opposed to legit, unbiased updating of voter rolls where it is OBVIOUSLY needed and assuring that only legit voters are allowed to vote?

I think the voter rolls should be kept current. However, if they are being purged by a party with a political motive and. there is no identified problem, then no.

And if that clean up is stopped by a political party with an agenda, what then?

Do you have a link or is it a hypothetical question?

Why would I need a link? Dems are the ones whining about cleaning up voter records aren't they. Dems are the ones whining and complaining about voter ID's aren't they? They must have an agenda.

Right. Democrats react to Republican initiatives which are admittedly designed to suppress the vote of certain classes of citizens and they are the ones with an agenda. :-\

Do you ever think about what you are posting before posting it? You have to be compulsive, you can't be that dumb.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Why does a discussion of requiring an ID to vote always degenerate into a partisan political argument? Are Dems. opposed to honest voting? Surely no one believes there isn't some voter fraud. So why when someone supports requiring an ID is he/she is just a dirty old Republican?

[homersapien 11,354]

Why does a discussion of requiring an ID to vote always degenerate into a partisan political argument? Are Dems. opposed to honest voting? Surely no one believes there isn't some voter fraud. So why when someone supports requiring an ID is he/she is just a dirty old Republican?

This has been covered many times.

The proposed "solution" to the perceived problem would create far more problems (obstacles to voting) among a certain classes of citizens than it would benefits in reducing voter fraud, which has been greatly exaggerated to begin with.

Since these classes of people typically vote the Democratic ticket, such voter ID initiatives would benefit Republicans disproportionately. Many Republicans have admitted this.

Whatever fraud that exists can be better addressed with better organization and management at the polling places. Whatever money is spent on photo IDs would be better spent on documenting instances of voting fraud and addressing the mistakes that allowed them to happen directly.

Photo IDs are a fake solution to an exaggerated problem. They are being promoted by Republicans for the partisan advantage they would yield. It's a classic "stalking horse" strategy.

Do you now understand now why these discussion quickly devolve to a political argument?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

AUFAN78.......I notice no one has answered your question, or mine.

[AUFAN78 3,890]

AUFAN78.......I notice no one has answered your question, or mine.

Shocking isn't it PT?

[Tigermike 3,008]

So you are opposed to legit, unbiased updating of voter rolls where it is OBVIOUSLY needed and assuring that only legit voters are allowed to vote?

I think the voter rolls should be kept current. However, if they are being purged by a party with a political motive and. there is no identified problem, then no.

And if that clean up is stopped by a political party with an agenda, what then?

Do you have a link or is it a hypothetical question?

Why would I need a link? Dems are the ones whining about cleaning up voter records aren't they. Dems are the ones whining and complaining about voter ID's aren't they? They must have an agenda.

Right. Democrats react to Republican initiatives which are admittedly designed to suppress the vote of certain classes of citizens and they are the ones with an agenda. :-\/>

Do you ever think about what you are posting before posting it? You have to be compulsive, you can't be that dumb. :no:/>

You don't sip the far left kool aid you swill it don't you. You are a true believer.

[homersapien 11,354]

So you are opposed to legit, unbiased updating of voter rolls where it is OBVIOUSLY needed and assuring that only legit voters are allowed to vote?

I think the voter rolls should be kept current. However, if they are being purged by a party with a political motive and. there is no identified problem, then no.

And if that clean up is stopped by a political party with an agenda, what then?

Do you have a link or is it a hypothetical question?

Why would I need a link? Dems are the ones whining about cleaning up voter records aren't they. Dems are the ones whining and complaining about voter ID's aren't they? They must have an agenda.

Right. Democrats react to Republican initiatives which are admittedly designed to suppress the vote of certain classes of citizens and they are the ones with an agenda. :-\/>

Do you ever think about what you are posting before posting it? You have to be compulsive, you can't be that dumb. :no:/>

You don't sip the far left kool aid you swill it don't you. You are a true believer.

Well, I truly believe that was a ridiculous post you made. Guess that's why you can't defend it, huh?

[Tigermike 3,008]

So you are opposed to legit, unbiased updating of voter rolls where it is OBVIOUSLY needed and assuring that only legit voters are allowed to vote?

I think the voter rolls should be kept current. However, if they are being purged by a party with a political motive and. there is no identified problem, then no.

And if that clean up is stopped by a political party with an agenda, what then?

Do you have a link or is it a hypothetical question?

Why would I need a link? Dems are the ones whining about cleaning up voter records aren't they. Dems are the ones whining and complaining about voter ID's aren't they? They must have an agenda.

Right. Democrats react to Republican initiatives which are admittedly designed to suppress the vote of certain classes of citizens and they are the ones with an agenda. :-\ (Admittedly? Who admitted it? Provide a link to your far left BS talking points.)

Do you ever think about what you are posting before posting it? You have to be compulsive, you can't be that dumb. (Prove your baseless claims. Oh and do it with something other than kos, thinkprogress or far left loon.)

Provide evidence of the racist intents of conservatives to steal votes.

[Tigermike 3,008]

Political Fraud About Voter Fraud

The president's selective statistics are red meat to supporters, but still bogus.

By

Robert D. Popper

Updated April 27, 2014 6:25 p.m. ET

The Obama administration has been ramping up its rhetoric about the evil of voter identification as part of the run-up to the midterm elections. In January, Attorney General Eric Holder told MSNBC that voter fraud "simply does not exist to the extent that would warrant" voter ID laws, adding that many who favor such measures do so in order to "depress the vote." Vice President Joe Biden claimed in February that new voter ID laws in North Carolina, Alabama and Texas were motivated by "hatred" and "zealotry."

In an April 11 speech to Al Sharpton's National Action Network, President Obama recited statistics purporting to show that voter fraud was extremely rare. The "real voter fraud," he said, "is people who try to deny our rights by making bogus arguments about voter fraud."

These arguments themselves are bogus. Consider the two studies from which Mr. Obama drew his statistics. The first, which he said "found only 10 cases of alleged in-person voter impersonation in 12 years," is a 2012 report issued by News21, an Arizona State University project.

Enlarge Image

President Obama and Al Sharpton at the National Action Network conference, April 11. Associated Press

The News21 website explains that students "under the direction of journalism professionals" sent public records requests to state and federal officials asking for information about voting fraud cases. The project acknowledged significant gaps in its data. Several states made no meaningful response. Counties argued that "public records laws don't require officials to respond at all." Election officials and state attorneys general admitted that they did not track voter fraud. The Justice Department referred News21 to its 93 local U.S. attorneys but, the website reported, "many of those offices, in turn, referred News21 back to the department."

Crucially, News21 noted that "nearly all the data" it received had "some vital piece of information that had been requested specifically but that was missing." Responses lacked "important details about each case—from whether the person was convicted or charged to the circumstances of the alleged fraud to the names of those involved."

Given these limitations, it is hard to believe any valid conclusions about voter fraud can be drawn from this study.

Mr. Obama also cited an "analysis" showing that only 40 voters "were indicted for fraud" from 2002 to 2005. That number is drawn from an Aug. 2, 2005, Justice Department news release—which describes the department's "Ballot Access and Voting Integrity" initiative—and from a related list of federal cases. The release mentioned 120 pending election-fraud investigations, 89 prosecutions and 52 convictions.

It is preposterous to cite that news release as proof that voter fraud is rare. The release contains no information concerning prosecutions in any of the 50 state court systems for violations of state voting laws, even though these are far more common than prosecutions for violations of federal voting laws. Even as a list of federal offenses, the news releasee is inadequate. Justice did not claim to have compiled all convictions, prosecutions or investigations—let alone all known or unsolved cases—involving federal voter fraud. The release was only a list of legal actions relating to what was then a three-year-old initiative.

More generally, judging voter fraud by counting criminal proceedings is misguided. For any crime, convictions are a fraction of prosecutions, which are a fraction of investigations, which are a fraction of known offenses, which are, in turn, a fraction of committed crimes. This is even more likely to be true of voter fraud, which is often a low enforcement priority—as News21 confirmed, many states do not even track it. Moreover, the fraud may be all but impossible to investigate or prove if it is carried out successfully.

We do know that this country's decentralized system of election administration offers abundant opportunities for fraud. For example, a February 2012 report by the Pew Research Center on the States, "Inaccurate, Costly, and Inefficient: Evidence That America's Voter Registration System Needs an Upgrade," found that 1.8 million deceased registrants were listed as active voters, and that 2.75 million voters had active registrations in more than one state.

In court papers filed last year, Virginia noted that a limited cross-check with 21 other participating states—which did not include California, Texas or New York—showed that 17,000 voters were registered in three or more states. Imagine if the cross-check were extended to all 50 states and if Virginia's results were typical.

Voter fraud, whatever its extent, can matter. Many elections, particularly local elections, are decided by slim margins. In January, Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted released remarkable statistics showing that 35 local races and eight local issues were decided in the Buckeye State in 2013 by one vote or by using the state's designated procedure, such as coin-flipping, to break a tie.

If the available evidence suggests that the amount of voter fraud is understated, the evidence that voter-ID laws suppress voting is nonexistent. In elections held after new voter-ID laws were enacted in Georgia and Tennessee, for instance, minority turnout either was stable or increased. In Tennessee, the turnout among Hispanics of voting age rose to 34.7% in 2012 from 19.2% in 2008, according to surveys by the U.S. Census Bureau, even though a strict new photo ID law was in effect in 2012. Turnout among blacks of voting age declined slightly, to 57.4% in 2012 from 58.1% in 2008, but this was within the Census survey's margin of error. In both years, black turnout was around 4% higher than the comparable white turnout.

When it comes to the subject of voter suppression, it is revealing that Mr. Obama avoided statistics earlier this month and relied entirely on conditional verbs: voters "could be turned away from the polls . . . may suddenly be told they can no longer vote . . . may learn that without a document like a passport or a birth certificate, they can't register."

The president's speech may have been red meat for his base and good for fundraising. But it failed to engage the serious issues relating to election integrity. The coming months don't promise an improvement.

Mr. Popper is a senior attorney for Judicial Watch and served as the deputy chief of the voting section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice from 2008-13.

link

A far as I’m concerned, even one case of voter fraud is enough to require ID's. And voter ID is a very reasonable way to deal with to deal with it. But then common sense and the far left have never been on good terms.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Even one case of voter fraud IS too much. We should implant a voting chip in everyone no matter how much it costs. Dims don't win elections without cheating. Look at Chicago. They are all liars and cheaters.