Voter fraud--an expose' - Page 11 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Dudesky · #**151** 05-21-2012, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

If common sense suggests that people are willing to risk long penitentiary sentences just so that they can effect an election by some small fraction of a single percentage point, then maybe it's something we should consider.

To take an example of what I mean, in an election involving 100,000 voters who are basically divided 50-50, each fraudulent vote will change the final result by about 0.001%. In return, the fraudulent voter risks 5 years in prison. Does that sound like a common sense scheme to you?

Big thing to consider........if caught.

Is there room in the Fed system for voter fraud wonks for 5 years?

Can't Know · #**152** 05-21-2012, 07:59 PM

So here's the bottom line.

Do we want to err on the side of working to ensure that only valid votes are cast, even if that means some people who are eligible to and desire to vote are unable to do so?

Or do we want to err on the side of working to ensure that those who are eligible and want to vote can do so, even if that means that some fraudulent votes will be cast?

For those who remember the lesson of Watergate -- the "win at all costs/the end justifies the means" attitude -- we simply don't trust that weaknesses in the system will not be exploited, whether by those in power, those who want to be in power, or those who want to help either way.

And so long as the Acorns of the world make it apparent that the system *can* be exploited, I'm going to fall into the first group.

If someone really wants to vote, they will find the means necessary to do so. Certainly there is no reason to lay an unseemly burden on them, but I still fail to see how requiring some manner of ID (at least if it's done at no expense to the voter) is an unseemly burden. And can we be honest? If they aren't motivated to vote, ANY burden will be unseemly, and well, so be it; the unmotivated voter is only slightly better than the fraudulent one.

Moreover, registration is itself a burden, is it not? But we don't have a problem with requiring people to register. So why all the fuss about requiring that they show they are in fact the person who is registered?

Dudesky · #**153** 05-21-2012, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Can't Know

So here's the bottom line.

Do we want to err on the side of working to ensure that only valid votes are cast, even if that means some people who are eligible to and desire to vote are unable to do so?

Or do we want to err on the side of working to ensure that those who are eligible and want to vote can do so, even if that means that some fraudulent votes will be cast?

For those who remember the lesson of Watergate -- the "win at all costs/the end justifies the means" attitude -- we simply don't trust that weaknesses in the system will not be exploited, whether by those in power, those who want to be in power, or those who want to help either way.

And so long as the Acorns of the world make it apparent that the system *can* be exploited, I'm going to fall into the first group.

If someone really wants to vote, they will find the means necessary to do so. Certainly there is no reason to lay an unseemly burden on them, but I still fail to see how requiring some manner of ID (at least if it's done at no expense to the voter) is an unseemly burden. And can we be honest? If they aren't motivated to vote, ANY burden will be unseemly, and well, so be it; the unmotivated voter is only slightly better than the fraudulent one.

Moreover, registration is itself a burden, is it not? But we don't have a problem with requiring people to register. So why all the fuss about requiring that they show they are in fact the person who is registered?

Another reason for National ID?

Barcode on the hand or forehead?

Vere ees your papers?

You aware Obama vendored out the vote count process to some Spanish firm?

Like Georgey Soros said, it doesn't matter who votes, what matters is who counts the votes.

disley · #**154** 05-21-2012, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

If common sense suggests that people are willing to risk long penitentiary sentences just so that they can effect an election by some small fraction of a single percentage point, then maybe it's something we should consider.

To take an example of what I mean, in an election involving 100,000 voters who are basically divided 50-50, each fraudulent vote will change the final result by about 0.001%. In return, the fraudulent voter risks 5 years in prison. Does that sound like a common sense scheme to you?

Voter fraud in Florida won Bush the 2000 election.
Not a few dozen people voting under false identities but whole districts and thousands of votes added by electronic voting machines that went towards giving Bush the election.
The purging of the electoral roll.
The votes were so close that by disqualifying the thousands of eligible voters, the republicans got over the line.
Even then they wouldn't have but they squashed a recount that would have given the election to Gore.
The thousands of voters they purged from the role was voter fraud, Gore wouldn't have needed a recount if the republicans hadn't fixed the the electoral roll in favour of the republicans.
You send election scrutineers around the world to oversee their electoral fairness, but forget to do it at home.
This oversight plunged the world into eight years of darkness, and destroyed America's credibility and economy.

Dudesky · #**155** 05-21-2012, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by disley

Voter fraud in Florida won Bush the 2000 election.
Not a few dozen people voting under false identities but whole districts and thousands of votes added by electronic voting machines that went towards giving Bush the election.
The purging of the electoral roll.
The votes were so close that by disqualifying the thousands of eligible voters, the republicans got over the line.
Even then they wouldn't have but they squashed a recount that would have given the election to Gore.
The thousands of voters they purged from the role was voter fraud, Gore wouldn't have needed a recount if the republicans hadn't fixed the the electoral roll in favour of the republicans.
You send election scrutineers around the world to oversee their electoral fairness, but forget to do it at home.
This oversight plunged the world into eight years of darkness, and destroyed America's credibility and economy.

Give me a valid source on giving Bush the election in Fla.

cmbdiesel · #**156** 05-21-2012, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Well let's just leave those dead folks on the rolls! Problem solved.

I hardly think that is the answer. Just clean up and maintain the database. It's not hard or expensive. We are in the digital age, there is no excuse for such half-assed housekeeping of official records. Fire the dip**** in charge and give that job to some geek fresh out of community college. Less pay, better performance.

cmbdiesel · #**157** 05-21-2012, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Can't Know

So here's the bottom line.

And so long as the Acorns of the world make it apparent that the system *can* be exploited

horse****. right-wing propaganda, swallowed whole by the ignorant

Botnst · #**158** 05-21-2012, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

I hardly think that is the answer. Just clean up and maintain the database. It's not hard or expensive. We are in the digital age, there is no excuse for such half-assed housekeeping of official records. Fire the dip**** in charge and give that job to some geek fresh out of community college. Less pay, better performance.

I'm with you, theoretically.

But reality is stranger than that.

It goes to court due to the Voting Rights Act. Gets tied up for years and costs local jurisdictions more than they can afford to fight the case. All the race baiting gets cranking. Its ****** insane.

cmbdiesel · #**159** 05-21-2012, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dudesky

Like Georgey Soros said, it doesn't matter who votes, what matters is who counts the votes.

Not Soros.... Stalin.

Botnst · #**160** 05-21-2012, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

If common sense suggests that people are willing to risk long penitentiary sentences just so that they can effect an election by some small fraction of a single percentage point, then maybe it's something we should consider.

To take an example of what I mean, in an election involving 100,000 voters who are basically divided 50-50, each fraudulent vote will change the final result by about 0.001%. In return, the fraudulent voter risks 5 years in prison. Does that sound like a common sense scheme to you?

Prove it doesn't happen.

Dudesky · #**161** 05-21-2012, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Well let's just leave those dead folks on the rolls! Problem solved.

But they always vote Dem in those close elections......

Dudesky · #**162** 05-21-2012, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Not Soros.... Stalin.

Maybe so, but Soros is connected to the Spanish company counting Obamas votes from what I have read.

Botnst · #**163** 05-21-2012, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by disley

Voter fraud in Florida won Bush the 2000 election.
Not a few dozen people voting under false identities but whole districts and thousands of votes added by electronic voting machines that went towards giving Bush the election.
The purging of the electoral roll.
The votes were so close that by disqualifying the thousands of eligible voters, the republicans got over the line.
Even then they wouldn't have but they squashed a recount that would have given the election to Gore.
The thousands of voters they purged from the role was voter fraud, Gore wouldn't have needed a recount if the republicans hadn't fixed the the electoral roll in favour of the republicans.
You send election scrutineers around the world to oversee their electoral fairness, but forget to do it at home.
This oversight plunged the world into eight years of darkness, and destroyed America's credibility and economy.

Aside from being wrong in almost every respect, you do have the nugget of a point: The voting was so inconsistent that the Supreme Court ruled that a total recount of the entire state, by hand, was necessary. the Democrat Party believed that a full recount would favor the Repos which was not the outcome they wished. The Democrats wanted a partial recount of only those districts that favored the Democrat Party candidate.

You did stumble over a significant point but failed to address it: If there actually had been voter fraud it wouldn't have taken thousands of votes but only a few hundred. Which goes to proper identification since so few votes were what decided the election.

In my opinion, the vote should have gone to the House of Representatives, per the constitution. But the Repos, as always, were too cowardly and hid behind the the court.

MS Fowler · #**164** 05-21-2012, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by disley

Voter fraud in Florida won Bush the 2000 election.
Not a few dozen people voting under false identities but whole districts and thousands of votes added by electronic voting machines that went towards giving Bush the election.
The purging of the electoral roll.
The votes were so close that by disqualifying the thousands of eligible voters, the republicans got over the line.
Even then they wouldn't have but they squashed a recount that would have given the election to Gore.
The thousands of voters they purged from the role was voter fraud, Gore wouldn't have needed a recount if the republicans hadn't fixed the the electoral roll in favour of the republicans.
You send election scrutineers around the world to oversee their electoral fairness, but forget to do it at home.
This oversight plunged the world into eight years of darkness, and destroyed America's credibility and economy.

You really believe this, don't you.
How many recounts were there? How many of those recounts favored Bush, and how many Gore?
Do you not think the national press would have trumpeted this crap if there was any chance of it being true? They hated Bush.

Palangi · #**165** 05-21-2012, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honus

If common sense suggests that people are willing to risk long penitentiary sentences just so that they can effect an election by some small fraction of a single percentage point, then maybe it's something we should consider.

To take an example of what I mean, in an election involving 100,000 voters who are basically divided 50-50, each fraudulent vote will change the final result by about 0.001%. In return, the fraudulent voter risks 5 years in prison. Does that sound like a common sense scheme to you?

With Eric Holder running the Injustice Dept, there isn't any risk of prosecution. Not on the Demokrat side, anyway........