Friday, September 22, 2017

Voter Fraud and It's Ramifications

Many folks among the fringe Left have long propagated the myth that there is virtually no voter fraud in this nation.  Further, there has long been a cry that there is an attempt to suppress "undesirable" people from voting by some Republican sources in an attempt to solve this "mythical voter fraud" issue.  

The claim is that there are many racist Republicans who are simply trying to prevent Hispanic and Black people from voting, especially since demographically they tend to vote more often for Democrats and progressive programs.

While I absolutely stand in solidarity with folks who insist polling places should be consistent in their placement, accessibility, and hours of operation for every polling station across the nation, I further think that requiring positive proof of eligibility to vote should also be mandatory.  In this day and age, this is certainly not the hardship for most people that some would lead us to believe.  After all, if we are concerned about foreign influence in our elections and keeping elections fair, shouldn't we ensure that ONLY U.S. citizens legally authorized to vote in a given state and jurisdiction are the ones that are actually voting?  

Despite the outcry from some folks that seemingly have a lot more to lose by ensuring fair elections occur without voter fraud, President Trump established a commission to look into this serious issue. And it is a very serious issue as the Pew Center for the States 2012 Study indicates.  It found that there were 24 MILLION voter registries that were inaccurate, duplicates, or out of date.  Further it found that 2.8 million people are registered to vote in two or more states.  It also confirms that there are 1.8 million deceased people which are still registered to vote.  

The Daily Signal's Hans von Spakovsky wrote an excellent article about the second resultant meeting on September 12 of President Trump' Advisory Commission on Election Integrity which occurred in New Hampshire.  Of course the Leftist mainstream media either ignored the findings of this commission or declared them a sham.  

I am not surprised; however, objective voters should indeed be very concerned with some of the findings.  Read Mr. von Spakovsky's article for more details.

As Evidence of Election Fraud Emerges, the Media Wants to Keep You in the Dark
If you have no idea what happened at the second meeting of President Donald Trump’s Advisory Commission on Election Integrity in New Hampshire on Sept. 12, I’m not surprised.
Though a horde of reporters attended the meeting, almost all of the media stories that emerged from it simply repeated the progressive left’s mantra that the commission is a “sham.”
Almost no one covered the substantive and very concerning testimony of 10 expert witnesses on the problems that exist in our voter registration and election system.
The witnesses included academics, election lawyers, state election officials, data analysts, software experts, and computer scientists.
The existing and potential problems they exposed would give any American with any common sense and any concern for our democratic process cause for alarm.
The first panel included Andrew Smith of the University of New Hampshire, Kimball Brace of Election Data Services Inc., and John Lott. They testified about historical election turnout statistics and the effects of election integrity issues on voter confidence.
Lott also testified that his statistical analyses show that contrary to the narrative myth pushed by some, voter ID does not depress voter turnout. In fact, there is some evidence that it may increase turnout because it increases public confidence in elections.
Read more here...


Specifically from the article, von Spakovsky reported that the Speaker of the House for New Hampshire  referenced a recent report stating,

"...over 6,500 individuals in 2016 used an out-of-state driver’s license to take advantage of New Hampshire’s same-day registration law to register and vote on Election Day.
Despite a law that requires an individual with an out-of-state license to obtain a New Hampshire license within 60 days of establishing residency in the state, only 15.5 percent have done so.
Many have tried to explain this away be saying those voters must all have been college students living in New Hampshire. Perhaps that is true.
But it may also be true that voters from Massachusetts and other surrounding states decided to take advantage of New Hampshire’s law to cross the border and vote in a presidential and Senate race, which were decided by only 3,000 and 1,000 voters, respectively."

So let me put this into perspective.  Republican Kelly Ayotte lost her U.S. Senate seat to Democrat Maggie Hassan by 1,017 votes, when there is an appearance that, in a worst case scenario, as many as 6,500 individuals may have fraudulently voted in the general election.   Even if only a sixth of those same-day registries were fraudulent, that still is more than enough to sway the outcome of the election.  Considering the neighboring state demographics, is it difficult to believe that a majority of those 6500 votes would have likely gone to Ms. Hassan?

In conclusion, with Ms. Hassan now in the Senate and voting "No" on the repeal of Obamacare, it is easy to see the ramifications of voter fraud affecting a controversial national "law", whose repeal would have otherwise been decided by Vice President Pence issuing a tie-breaking vote had this likely fraud not occurred.

This is just the latest example of the utmost importance of veracity in our elections, and why We The People should ensure that every person that votes is a U.S. Citizen that is legally allowed to cast a ballot.  There is simply way too much at stake to not do so.

17 comments:

Majormajor said...

Mr.Paine,

Is it Liberals or Leftists who opposed "positive proof of eligibility to vote."

I believe the answer to that question will shed light on true state of the Democrat Party today.

T. Paine said...

Majormajor, I would say that it is Leftists who oppose this. Liberals, in the traditional meaning of the term, would similarly wish to have fair elections with only those eligible to vote being able to do so. That said, the noisiest faction of the Democrat Party today all seems to becoming from far Leftist factions, sir. (In my opinion, of course!)

Paul said...

I have absolutely no problem with requiring an ID to vote.

For the small percentage who have to get an ID to just vote, that ID should be free of charge, otherwise it becomes a poll tax.

The report you cite with its numbers represents opportunity to illegally vote.

Most of the duplicate voters on rolls are simple bureaucratic mistakes.

A dead person cannot vote, even if their names are still on the voter rolls. How many try to use a dead persons vote, to vote? Clearly a violation of the law.

Multiple State courts have found multiple States guilty of infringing on people's right to vote through unacceptable practices like hours open at polling places, and to few polling places to vote, creating a hardship to vote, and charging a fee for an ID just to vote, which is a poll tax. These offensives were particularly egregious, because the courts found that it was biased against mainly democratic voting districts.

Finally, this report cites much opportunity for voter fraud because of bureaucratic unfairness, but the facts on how many actual voter fraud cases are filled, are in the single numbers. Telling us that actual voter fraud is less than 1% and an insignificant problem in a voting possibly of upwards of 200 million people We should work to eliminate loop holes and problems, but lets not claim it is a big problem, or actually changing to vote in an election. In your example that 6,500 could have fraudulently voted, there was zero cases of voter fraud in that election.

T. Paine said...


For the small percentage who have to get an ID to just vote, that ID should be free of charge, otherwise it becomes a poll tax. ~ Paul

Agreed! ~ TP

The report you cite with its numbers represents opportunity to illegally vote. ~ Paul

Also agreed, sir. ~ TP

Most of the duplicate voters on rolls are simple bureaucratic mistakes. ~ Paul

Most likely they are; however, this can cause confusion and can lead to fraud. ~ TP

A dead person cannot vote, even if their names are still on the voter rolls. How many try to use a dead persons vote, to vote? Clearly a violation of the law. ~ Paul

Ask the charlatans in Chicago that seem to have a penchant for dead people mysteriously rising from the grave and "voting". Also, "vote early, vote often" was a somewhat humorous phrase that came to be because of the illegal voting practices in some precincts. ~ TP

Multiple State courts have found multiple States guilty of infringing on people's right to vote through unacceptable practices like hours open at polling places, and to few polling places to vote, creating a hardship to vote, and charging a fee for an ID just to vote, which is a poll tax. These offensives were particularly egregious, because the courts found that it was biased against mainly democratic voting districts. ~ Paul

I agree with the courts' findings in these instances. I even made this point early in the article that accessibility, hours of operation, and even locations of polling places must be uniform throughout. ~ TP

Finally, this report cites much opportunity for voter fraud because of bureaucratic unfairness, but the facts on how many actual voter fraud cases are filled, are in the single numbers. Telling us that actual voter fraud is less than 1% and an insignificant problem in a voting possibly of upwards of 200 million people We should work to eliminate loop holes and problems, but lets not claim it is a big problem, or actually changing to vote in an election. In your example that 6,500 could have fraudulently voted, there was zero cases of voter fraud in that election. ~ Paul

Paul! We were finding so much common ground until this last paragraph. If only 15% of those same-day registered voters actually went on to change their home of record on their new New Hampshire Drivers' licenses, then what happened to the 85% that didn't? Don't you see a great potential for voter fraud from neighboring states there? If only a fifth of those now 5525 voters that didn't subsequently prove their residency in the state of New Hampshire had illegal intentions, that still leaves over 1100 fraudulent voters that abused that law. Kelly Ayotte lost her senate seat by 1017 votes. Tell me again that the problem is not significant, sir. ~ TP

Paul said...

Mr. Paine,

As you said, "great potential" exist, but actual voter fraud does not, according to the number of cases brought to court. Again, I have no problem ending loopholes and poorly written voting laws. It's easy to verify the number of voting fraud cases brought to court and the number successfully proven and won. It is a TINY amount of votes cast.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Voter fraud isn't the problem that conservatives, like Mr. Paine, would have you believe it is. As Paul has already mentioned, it's minuscule and has no effect in deciding elections one way or another. It's truly another distraction designed to "take your eyes off the ball."

The much broader and glaring problems are voter suppression and election fraud -- which in the former case, conservative efforts to thwart so-called voter fraud only exacerbates, and in the latter case we've seen occur time-and-time again, most notoriously in Florida in 2000 which ultimately gave us an illegitimate president.

The true results for the most recent presidential "election" may never be known, but I suspect there was election fraud committed in several of the key swing-states.

All in all, the whole election process is a farce and needs to be completely revamped. But, it won't be without a fight. The powers-that-be like it just the way it is. After all, it keeps the same policies of permanent war and corporate power in charge and in control, and our democratic processes at bay. All the trappings of a democratic republic are intact, but they're meaningless and decorative at best in our plutocratic corporatocracy.

T. Paine said...

Paul, I acknowledge that the cases of voter fraud are not in the millions, sir. That said, even when it is "only" fraud in the thousands, the impact can have national implications. I have provided the example of New Hampshire and Kelly Ayotte, which most likely determined the inability of our country to repeal the horrific Obamacare law. Tell me that these "tiny" numbers don't really matter, Paul and JG.

JG, respectfully sir, I have given examples of why voter fraud has incredible impact on our country. You say it has no effect in deciding elections, but offer no proof to counter my real life example, sir. It does little good for me to provide verifiable data proving it does, and you to simply disagree without proof and saying it does not.

For the record, AGAIN, I am absolutely in agreement with you that voter suppression and election fraud must be combated and punished severely too. I am sure that Senator Sanders would agree with me as this relates to Hillary and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

I really don't want to get into the nonsensical leftist argument that Bush stole the 2000 election either. That is bovine excrement. The SCOTUS simply stepped in so that Florida state law was followed and that there were not unlimited "recounts" conducted until Al Gore magically obtained more votes than Bush there.

I do agree that revamping of the election process does indeed need to occur. We need to ensure the integrity of vote counts, access to voting for all, and verifying that ONLY eligible U.S. citizens are the ones allowed to vote. Surely you agree with me on these issues, right JG?

See these links for more evidence of voter issues that are occurring:

http://dailysignal.com/2017/09/24/hundreds-of-illegal-voters-revealed-in-philadelphia/?utm_source=TDS_Email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=MorningBell&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTTJKaVlXRXdNVEF5WldZeCIsInQiOiJzNGFMVzJ0NEFEWFliQjFFbDYxY01jem5aV3ZZcDIraUhOQzZpdU1GV2tYZEhwZUVHQ0doYnNQYlB5STRHa1JnMGNoblppYzdhVFBCaWpvTWY5bnRyV29IUFhBWXRSclk2SkRUcWxZK3MxRlJhWFM0Ulh4TVV3UXNQR2I3djZBdCJ9

http://thf-legal.s3.amazonaws.com/VoterFraudCases.pdf?_ga=2.259350851.810923542.1506349313-2074643395.1503584310

Majormajor said...

Mr Paine,

Well said and correct!

Paul said...

Mr. Paine,

You are trying to make a case for actual voter fraud based on mathematical possibilities. The numbers you use are not fact, they are unproven possibilities.

I understand and agree with the idea that this issue is a matter of principle as well as law. That is why I agree with steps like requiring an ID to vote, even though the research proves that showing an ID to vote will not stop possible fraud, because having to show an ID, or not, is not the cause, or solution to voter fraud.

At the end of this comment I have a link address to the latest numbers on voter fraud and using an ID to vote.

The numbers prove that voter fraud is not an issue effecting the outcome of elections, or even a danger of doing that. The numbers do show that the Republican attempts through voting regulations are depriving people of their right to vote, and multiple State courts have found the Republican party in those States guilty of denying people of their right to vote through those unconstitutional measures. The effect of the Republican unconstitutional measures had a much larger effect in changing the outcome of elections, than the tiny number of actual voter fraud.

If improving our elections is the goal, then eliminating unconstitutional voting restrictions as proposed by Republicans should be stopped. The danger to effecting our elections is hacking the election system, such as attempted by the Russians. So far even the proven Russian intrusion into our elections has not shown that any ballot systems have been hacked, therefore, no fraudulent votes were cast, or legal votes effected.

I have heard the Republican cry of election fraud for years, but not only have their rule changes to fix that problem been ruled unconstitutional, but the numbers tell us their claim for the cause of the small amount of voter is not the cause of voter fraud, but their fix is causing a large amount of unconstitutional voter suppression. That is not an opinion to disagree with, it is a fact to be dealt with.

In short, the Republicans are making a mountain out of a mole hill and denying people's rights in their process. Either that is an intentional, evil attempt to steal elections, or a delusional, stupid conclusion of the facts.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9481

Majormajor said...

"I have heard the Republican cry of election fraud for years"

It happened in 1960, after John Kennedy defeated Nixon by the narrowest of margins. Nixon believed that Kennedy’s allies had stolen the election through systematic fraud. He had far more evidence in his court than Donald Trump, and his margin of loss was much smaller than Trump’s current deficit in the polls. He didn’t concede right away, and gave serious consideration to fighting the results. But ultimately Nixon accepted them—and so did the Republican Party as well as the American public.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/10/donald-trump-2016-rigged-nixon-kennedy-1960-214395 10/2016 Before the election...interesting.



Jefferson's Guardian said...

T. Paine: "You say it has no effect in deciding elections, but offer no proof to counter my real life example, sir. It does little good for me to provide verifiable data proving it does..."

Verifiable data?!? Nice try. ;-)

Here, I'll see you and raise you one...

Mr. Paine, I had a difficult time not laughing when I examined the chart embedded at the top of this article. Apparently the course requirements to obtain your engineering degree didn't require much in the way of quantitative analysis. Otherwise you would have noticed, right off, the fallacy connected with what you posted. I'm sorry, but I'm still laughing...

Oh, and it didn't go unnoticed that you failed to respond to my allegations of voter suppression and election fraud -- beyond denying that which most blatantly occurred, in the mind of any rational person, during the 2000 presidential election. I can't escape the irony of your denial that both occurred during that specific election cycle.

Once again, nice try. ;-)

T. Paine said...

Paul, yes my numbers do show that, regarding New Hampshire and Kelly Ayotte, this is an unproven possibility; however, considering the demographics of the surrounding states near to New Hampshire, do you honestly not think that a huge majority of these unaccounted for same-day registered voters were not Hillary/Cassan supporters instead of Trump/Ayotte voters?

"The numbers prove that voter fraud is not an issue effecting the outcome of elections, or even a danger of doing that."

Paul, with all due respect, I have just presented a real world example where it is entirely possible and even likely that voter fraud DID affect the outcome of an election and furthermore had national implications in doing so, sir.

As for the corrupt GOP members that have actually been responsible for denying voting rights to qualified citizens, they too should be charged and punished for their crimes. I have no problem with this whatsoever. In fact, I insist that they be punished.

I certainly don't think requiring a tamper-proof ID is an unconstitutional restriction, however.

As for the link to the blogger you sent, I am unfortunately not swayed by this. I also provided a link of a national think tank that has comprised a data base of various voter fraud and election fraud cases, and they far surpass what Blogger Brad states has occurred. http://thf-legal.s3.amazonaws.com/VoterFraudCases.pdf?_ga=2.191337642.1092402355.1506437498-2074643395.1503584310

Paul said...

Mr. Paine,

We are talking over each other. I am talking about facts and actual cases, you are talking about possibilities. I'll go with proven facts. To quote yourself describing this issue, "this is an unproven possibility."

I would be interested in seeing the facts on these thousands of voter fraud instances you claim. How many were charged? How many went to court? How many were arrested? Etc., etc.....

The numbers used and research quoted by that blogger were NBC national numbers. If you don't accept the numbers based on NBC reporting, check the government numbers, they show the exact same thing. In fact any honest (using public records-court filings, arrests, etc..) survey show the same numbers. These numbers are public record and easily available to a computer user like yourself.

An ID (especially a drivers license) is not absolute proof that a person has a right to vote, or is even a citizen, nor is it a solution to voter fraud, as shown by the numbers and the research. A Social Security number would be better, but we know those are also faked. Nothing is 100%.

Attack the problem where it is the worst. The numbers show and courts have declared that these unconstitutional voting regulations cause 10's of thousands of real violations of proper voting, not vote fraud, which only 10 cases were charged last presidential election.

T. Paine said...

JG, so your Brennan Center report runs counter to my Heritage Foundation of CASES and CONVICTIONS of actual voter and election fraud. Think I'll still side with the court documentation on this one, sir.

I don't know what is up with you guys -- seriously. If I don't agree with your view of the 2000 presidential election, than I am not rational? I can understand how in your world of conspiracy theories, that the election was stolen from Al Gore. The fact of the matter is that SCOTUS only stepped in when after the Florida state law was satisfied with the required recount. Gore and team wanted to continue with additional recounts, each time "fortuitously finding" and accumulating more votes for him. If the Supreme Court had allowed the indefinite recounts to occur after the secretary of state verified the results of the recount, then eventually the election would indeed have been stolen, sir, --- by Al Gore.

Nice try though, yourself.

woodenman1954 said...

Mr. Paine, do you believe the country and the world would have been worse off if Al Gore was president for eight years rather than Bush?

T. Paine said...

Woodenman, that is an interesting question, particularly because I know you ask it is all sincerity, sir.

I admittedly voted for Bush in the general election in 2000, but I certainly did not vote for him in the primary. I was greatly displeased with some of his domestic spending policies in particular. Further, while I understood his rationale for going into Iraq, all of the lies and politics of the issue aside, I am not sure if that was the best course of action or not. I can see reasonable cases being made from both sides, when looked at dispassionately.

All of that said, I would have been far more likely to vote for the pro-life, pro-second amendment Senator Al Gore than I would have been to vote for the pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-global warming VP Gore.

Ultimately, my answer to you sir is that I don't know. In light of Gore's changed core beliefs, I think the potential for the world being worse off is entirely possible. With the world-changing event of 9/11 it is hard to tell what such an event would have as regards a President Gore and his actions.

What do you think the world would have been like, had Al Gore won in 2000?

Dave Dubya said...

You do know Trump's "commission" was formed to support his lie about 3 million illegal voters, right?

Gore, the man most Americans voted for wouldn't have started a war based on lies that spawned ISIS.

While the Right openly suppresses voter registration, poll access, and purges eligible voters, they deflect to their inflated "voter impersonation crisis".

There's a study in Wisconsin that shows people with proper ID's were so confused about the law they didn't vote.

It isn't enough that small state voters have more electoral power than large state voters. They want a one-party dictatorship and will dismantle democracy to get it.

Inequality has always been a feature of our so-called democratic republic.

This is how con-servatives and corporatists want it.

They are winning. Democracy is defeated. A representative republic of, by, and for the people, does not exist here.