Don’t Believe Voter Fraud Happens? Here’s Some Examples

[longknife]

We all know the Left strongly declares that the effort to pass voter ID laws is nothing but discrimination as, according to them, there is no such thing as voter fraud.


Well, here an article with a link to almost 200 cases as well as outlining 7 up front.


Now, watch the cries that this can't be true because the site is …. select the charge yourselves. Read the piece @ Don t Believe Voter Fraud Happens Here s Some Examples

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[Foxfyre]

We all know the Left strongly declares that the effort to pass voter ID laws is nothing but discrimination as, according to them, there is no such thing as voter fraud.


Well, here an article with a link to almost 200 cases as well as outlining 7 up front.


Now, watch the cries that this can't be true because the site is …. select the charge yourselves. Read the piece @ Don t Believe Voter Fraud Happens Here s Some Examples

I have witnessed voter fraud up close and personal. And while it is likely a relatively small percentage of the total vote, it is a near certainty that for every instance in which it is identified, there are many other instances in which it is not. And in a very close election at any level, it could make the difference between an honest election and a stolen one.

We need to be a people who not only demands honest, fair, and verifiable elections of those entrusted to take leadership roles, but we need to assure the people that the vote is in fact honest, fair, and verifiable.

The ONLY honest reason anybody would resist that is because they WANT the ability to rig elections in somebody's favor.

 

[mamooth]

If Republicans are manufacturing excuses for losing this early, it means they understand how badly they're going to lose.

Notice something about your list?

None of the cases were identified by party.

None of them would have been stopped by more stringent ID.

The most common type of vote fraud is by absentee ballots, which are more often used by Republicans. Naturally, Republicans fight tooth and nail against preventing such vote fraud, because they count so heavily on that vote fraud.

 

[Nyvin]

Voter Fraud doesn't affect elections. It's a petty, miniscule problem. Of course who on here would possibly believe that...

 

[Care4all]

We all know the Left strongly declares that the effort to pass voter ID laws is nothing but discrimination as, according to them, there is no such thing as voter fraud.


Well, here an article with a link to almost 200 cases as well as outlining 7 up front.


Now, watch the cries that this can't be true because the site is …. select the charge yourselves. Read the piece @ Don t Believe Voter Fraud Happens Here s Some Examples

Did you even read your own link? None of this fraud mentioned could only be stopped with a gvt issued photo id at the polls. NONE!

Democrats do believe there is voter fraud taking place, we just KNOW it is not from not having gvt issued photo id's....

it's inside jobs with poll workers and others with inside info, it's in absentee ballots, it's in the States not removing dead people from their voter rolls.....

 

[Care4all]

It IS a form of voter FRAUD when you disenfranchise legitimate citizens from voting....or you give them hurdles to climb over for them to be able to vote....while the citizens who drive, have to go through no hurdles at all...

 

[Wuwei]

Now, watch the cries that this can't be true because the site is …. select the charge yourselves. Read the piece @ Don t Believe Voter Fraud Happens Here s Some Examples

You didn't predict the outcome of your OP correctly. The "cries" are not because of the validity of your site reference, and not because of voter ID fraud. It is because of the prevalence of voting officer fraud. You need to come up with a suggestion to prevent that kind of fraud.

 

[Foxfyre]

We all know the Left strongly declares that the effort to pass voter ID laws is nothing but discrimination as, according to them, there is no such thing as voter fraud.


Well, here an article with a link to almost 200 cases as well as outlining 7 up front.


Now, watch the cries that this can't be true because the site is …. select the charge yourselves. Read the piece @ Don t Believe Voter Fraud Happens Here s Some Examples

Did you even read your own link? None of this fraud mentioned could only be stopped with a gvt issued photo id at the polls. NONE!

Democrats do believe there is voter fraud taking place, we just KNOW it is not from not having gvt issued photo id's....

it's inside jobs with poll workers and others with inside info, it's in absentee ballots, it's in the States not removing dead people from their voter rolls.....

If people did not deliberately use those dead people as an opportunity to cast an illegal vote, those dead people would not be a problem though would they? In the case I witnessed, the person had been dead less than two weeks so there was no opportunity to remove him from the roll. But somebody, knowing he was dead, signed in for him and voted. It would never have been noticed except that his grieving widow saw that somebody has signed him in when she signed in to cast her own vote.

To keep the system honest, people should have to report to the city or county clerk to register in person, show positive ID and proof of residency, all in time to get them onto the roll to vote. Some provision could be made for authorized officials to go to the physically incapacitated to register him/her to vote, but people unwilling to make that effort should not vote.

And people should also get themselves to their assigned precinct on election day, show positive ID, and vote. To assume that requiring people to show positive ID somehow disenfranchises anybody is ludicrous . If a person cannot show that he/she is legally entitled to vote, then he/she is almost certainly not legally entitled to vote when positive ID is necessary to:
Buy alcohol or cigarettes
Open a bank account
Obtain a passport
Apply for food stamps, welfare benefits, social security, Medicaid, Medicare, Obamacare
Apply for a job
Rent or buy a home
Rent or buy a car
Get a driver's license
Fly on a commercial airplane
Get married
Buy a gun
Adopt a child or a pet
Rent a hotel room
Get a fishing or hunting license
Buy a cell phone
Play at a casino
Pick up a prescription or purchase certain cold meds or other products
Buy an M-rated video or video game
Hold a formal rally or protest

But we disenfranchise people by requiring positive ID to vote?

 

[kiwiman127]

Gerrymaking has a much bigger place in affecting voting results than voter fraud by leaps and bounds.
But that's OK, right?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Don’t Believe Voter Fraud Happens? Here’s Some Examples"

Wrong.

The issue has nothing to do with whether voter fraud occurs or not, the issue has to do with the fact that voter fraud occurs so rarely that it doesn't justify the state placing an undue burden on the fundamental right to vote, such as 'voter ID' laws.

 

[Foxfyre]

Gerrymaking has a much bigger place in affecting voting results than voter fraud by leaps and bounds.
But that's OK, right?

Gerrymandering should also be illegal. Every state should be divided into equal sized divisions according to how many districts it is authorized to have and then let the chips fall where they may.

 

[Nyvin]

Gerrymaking has a much bigger place in affecting voting results than voter fraud by leaps and bounds.
But that's OK, right?

Gerrymandering should also be illegal. Every state should be divided into equal sized divisions according to how many districts it is authorized to have and then let the chips fall where they may.

That would be idiotic to draw districts without taking population into account, if that's what you mean.

 

[kiwiman127]

I'm sure that's where Foxfyre was going with that thought.

 

[Foxfyre]

Gerrymaking has a much bigger place in affecting voting results than voter fraud by leaps and bounds.
But that's OK, right?

Gerrymandering should also be illegal. Every state should be divided into equal sized divisions according to how many districts it is authorized to have and then let the chips fall where they may.

That would be idiotic to draw districts without taking population into account, if that's what you mean.

Why? The Senate was designed to balance power between small states and the big heavily populated ones. The Electoral College was designed to ensure that the big heavily populated states would not have unreasonably more power than the smaller more sparsely populated states.

Why shouldn't districts within a state be designed with the same purpose in mind?

The one exception would be in a state like ours that is in no way gerrymandered, but District 1 is small and includes the Albuquerque metro area that comprises about half the state population plus Torrance County--sparsely populated but that considers itself part of the metro area. Districts 2 and 3 have much more land area but contain all the rest of the population. In New York I would see NYC as being a single district with the rest of the state divided into equal size districts taking in the rest of the population.

 

[kiwiman127]

If not using population as a bases for a congressional district, then you are leaving the door open for political games.
The Electoral College recognizes population differences.

 

[Nyvin]

Gerrymaking has a much bigger place in affecting voting results than voter fraud by leaps and bounds.
But that's OK, right?

Gerrymandering should also be illegal. Every state should be divided into equal sized divisions according to how many districts it is authorized to have and then let the chips fall where they may.

That would be idiotic to draw districts without taking population into account, if that's what you mean.

Why? The Senate was designed to balance power between small states and the big heavily populated ones. The Electoral College was designed to ensure that the big heavily populated states would not have unreasonably more power than the smaller more sparsely populated states.

Why shouldn't districts within a state be designed with the same purpose in mind?

The one exception would be in a state like ours that is in no way gerrymandered, but District 1 is small and includes the Albuquerque metro area that comprises about half the state population plus Torrance County--sparsely populated but that considers itself part of the metro area. Districts 2 and 3 have much more land area but contain all the rest of the population. In New York I would see NYC as being a single district with the rest of the state divided into equal size districts taking in the rest of the population.

NYC has almost half the population of New York State...how in the world do you consider it fair that 50% of the population gets 4% of the districts?? New York has 27 districts because it has so many people...it has so many people because of NYC...To basically take away the ~15 or so seats from NYC and give them to upstate New York is basically nothing short of stealing.

Not to mention this would lead to corruption about 10x worse then what we see now with gerrymandering.

You forget the two chamber Congress goes "both ways" the small state power in the Senate is balanced out by the large state power in the House...it was something called "compromise".

 

[Foxfyre]

Gerrymaking has a much bigger place in affecting voting results than voter fraud by leaps and bounds.
But that's OK, right?

Gerrymandering should also be illegal. Every state should be divided into equal sized divisions according to how many districts it is authorized to have and then let the chips fall where they may.

That would be idiotic to draw districts without taking population into account, if that's what you mean.

Why? The Senate was designed to balance power between small states and the big heavily populated ones. The Electoral College was designed to ensure that the big heavily populated states would not have unreasonably more power than the smaller more sparsely populated states.

Why shouldn't districts within a state be designed with the same purpose in mind?

The one exception would be in a state like ours that is in no way gerrymandered, but District 1 is small and includes the Albuquerque metro area that comprises about half the state population plus Torrance County--sparsely populated but that considers itself part of the metro area. Districts 2 and 3 have much more land area but contain all the rest of the population. In New York I would see NYC as being a single district with the rest of the state divided into equal size districts taking in the rest of the population.

NYC has almost half the population of New York State...how in the world do you consider it fair that 50% of the population gets 4% of the districts?? New York has 27 districts because it has so many people...it has so many people because of NYC...To basically take away the ~15 or so seats from NYC and give them to upstate New York is basically nothing short of stealing.

Not to mention this would lead to corruption about 10x worse then what we see now with gerrymandering.

You forget the two chamber Congress goes "both ways" the small state power in the Senate is balanced out by the large state power in the House...it was something called "compromise".

It is as fair for a large concentration of population to lose power to dictate to all the rest of the population as it is for half the population to have to join together to overcome the power of the half located in one central location. The idea is to make everybody important and to have representation with power and not just those concentrated in a small area.

If all a politician has to do is make promises to, i.e. bribe, a few heavily concentrated populations in order to keep himself in office, how much power does that give to the folks in the less populated areas? And how much does that lend itself to corruption?

 

[Nyvin]

Gerrymaking has a much bigger place in affecting voting results than voter fraud by leaps and bounds.
But that's OK, right?

Gerrymandering should also be illegal. Every state should be divided into equal sized divisions according to how many districts it is authorized to have and then let the chips fall where they may.

That would be idiotic to draw districts without taking population into account, if that's what you mean.

Why? The Senate was designed to balance power between small states and the big heavily populated ones. The Electoral College was designed to ensure that the big heavily populated states would not have unreasonably more power than the smaller more sparsely populated states.

Why shouldn't districts within a state be designed with the same purpose in mind?

The one exception would be in a state like ours that is in no way gerrymandered, but District 1 is small and includes the Albuquerque metro area that comprises about half the state population plus Torrance County--sparsely populated but that considers itself part of the metro area. Districts 2 and 3 have much more land area but contain all the rest of the population. In New York I would see NYC as being a single district with the rest of the state divided into equal size districts taking in the rest of the population.

NYC has almost half the population of New York State...how in the world do you consider it fair that 50% of the population gets 4% of the districts?? New York has 27 districts because it has so many people...it has so many people because of NYC...To basically take away the ~15 or so seats from NYC and give them to upstate New York is basically nothing short of stealing.

Not to mention this would lead to corruption about 10x worse then what we see now with gerrymandering.

You forget the two chamber Congress goes "both ways" the small state power in the Senate is balanced out by the large state power in the House...it was something called "compromise".

It is as fair for a large concentration of population to lose power to dictate to all the rest of the population as it is for half the population to have to join together to overcome the power of the half located in one central location. The idea is to make everybody important and to have representation with power and not just those concentrated in a small area.

If all a politician has to do is make promises to, i.e. bribe, a few heavily concentrated populations in order to keep himself in office, how much power does that give to the folks in the less populated areas? And how much does that lend itself to corruption?

Right now each congressional district has ~700,000 or so people in it. Period. It doesn't matter about the geography where they live...each group of people gets their representative. You're trying to make it into an "us" vs "them" situation, it's not. People are people whether they live in a big city or the middle of nowhere. This would completely go against any notion of equality in our government, since it's basically empowering people that live in sparsely populated areas, for no other reason then "the city people are gonna get us"

Under your idea each congressional district could have 8,000,000 people or as few as 500.

Again...it goes both ways, all a politician has to do is make promises to ANYONE...as long as they get a majority it doesn't matter if it's a heavy concentration or not, it's an irrelevant point. What's the difference if they bribe city-dwellers as opposed to bribe farmers??

All a rep has to do now is cater to the people in their district, the same number of about 700,000 people as in any other district, there is no need for them to care about any other group of people outside their district, your point is moot.