What's new

Election Fraud

I was so curious about that statement, as it seemed counterintuitive as something Obama would actually say. (Fwiw, if that were an actual quote, look at the difference a comma would make: "Don't worry, if you're eligible, just go vote").

Anyway, I found this entry at Snopes that seems to pertain to this claim.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-encouraged-illegal-aliens-to-vote/

From the entry: "In the full interview, it’s clear Obama is urging Latino citizens to vote in order to give voice to members of their community who are precluded from doing so by lack of citizenship, not urging non-citizens to vote illegally. Rodriguez’s question seems to be addressing a fear that voting will result in scrutiny on one’s family which could result in deportation of undocumented relatives".

The relevant part of the interview is at the link to judge, including this exchange:

RODRIGUEZ: This has been a huge fear presented especially during this election.

OBAMA: And the reason that fear is promoted is because they don’t want people voting. People are discouraged from voting and part of what is important for Latino citizens is to make your voice heard, because you’re not just speaking for yourself. You’re speaking for family members, friends, classmates of yours in school…

RODRIGUEZ: Your entire community.

OBAMA: … who may not have a voice. Who can’t legally vote. But they’re counting on you to make sure that you have the courage to make your voice heard.

Thanks for this contribution. I'm sure there are all kinds of fears playing upon folks on every side of this question.

But it is a racist or race=mongering statement on Obama's part to infer that one Latino can vote for those who can't, representing a sort of homogenous community perception. It is a noxious claim that we could rely on such representation of incoming folks. Trump has been getting more Latino and black votes than former Republican candidates, partly because he talks about jobs and helping businesses here, despite--or like-- my probably equally invalid generalization that lots of the Latino newcomers have been schooled in slavish obedience to authorities they have absolutely no hope of doing anything at all for them.

The cocky sort of claims dems make on segmented portions of the electorate is falling short, I believe. Socialism is not what people come here for. They want a chance to work and build a better life.

I'll take the notes you've brought here as an alert that Obama is actually pretty clever, and whether an open borders believer or not, he's not going to just run his mouth like that.

Well, I've advertised my concerns and motives to get facts, now lets see what is really going on.
 
Look at what you just said, and what you're seeing through Judicial watch, and what you said earlier.



And what you said agreed with just before than that:



Putting that in a different order;
  1. You identify that Judicial Watch, a conservative advocate group(Special interest), financed privately(including application for Grants), is currently investigating AND
  2. You agree there to be No Universally Accepted Definition of what to look for(let alone a conclusive, causal link exists between possible and tangible)
  3. Yet, based on private belief, you want law enforcement resources to be allocated in combating "it"
How you don't see the simple fallacy here is kind of awe inspiring. That's kind of how it's supposed to be; state real, true evidence, and let's do something about it. You even agree that there isn't even a bar, let alone hard evidence of a major issue.

Let's punt on that.

In numbers and sources, what would it take for you to accept that additional funding for electoral fraud is fiscally irresponsible?

I'll just pass on the argument here, as it seems to be the same argument why we should devote no resources to detecting or preventing any crime, well... for example, a related crime quite universally claimed by some, that there is voter intimidation going on. If we get anyone saying something like that, it doesn't take long for the cops to set up a zone around the polls to watch for anyone doing something like that.

And yes, we do have poll watchers from various parties often observing the conduct of the officials passing out the ballots and making sure the voter puts them in the box.

What I am saying is that ballots should be handled like bank cash transport companies do it. Armed guards, double witnesses signing off every movement. And nobody should be out driving around with a stack of ballot "looking for voters". That kind of vote harvesting is what is causing a lot of negative public apprehensions across the state.

Yes go get your people and bring them to the poll.

I have no idea how to prevent someone from leaning on a disinterested voter with a vote-by-mail ballot and get it filled out as the activists wants. But if it happens, it is illegal, and people need to speak up. Especially if it is an organized effort.
 
Lol. Judicial watch. Lol

you and others with no valid contributions get the hell outta here.

Judicial won the case in court, and the judge ordered the counties to address their concern about moved-out, dead, and ineligible voters on the voter registration rolls.

If you want to help get good facts that would be appreciated.
 
This one is hard to believe for me. In Utah at least, all mail in ballots are verified by signature. The ballot returned must be signed and the signature must match a prior legitimate signature from that person that the state/county has on record. If it does not match or can't be validated, then the vote is not counted.

If you have different information on this that shows how filling something out for someone else will actually work, I'm all ear.

hopefully, you are right. I do vote by mail, and I have concerns about my signature being objected to and my vote ruled invalid. I don't think this system fully addresses the issues, but it seems to be a good start. It still takes a lot of people looking at the ballots.
 
Here's official information on the 2010 cebsus and voter registration and lots of relevant trends.... I will try to get updated information....

https://www.lavote.net/Documents/2010-la-county-electoral-profile-.pdf

Here is their summary in concise form:

The vast size and diversity of the County make it the largest and most complex election jurisdiction in the country, with over 500 political districts, including the County’s five member, Board of Supervisors and municipal governments. Over 75%, 4,360,410 of the County of Los Angeles’ eligible population (5.8 million) are registered to vote. Of these registered voters, 654,620 (15%) are Permanent Vote By Mail Voters

and here is the official census presentation from the US gov, which is a source for the above County information:

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/losangelescountycalifornia,CA/PST045218
 
Last edited:
We do not have official or documented records here of newcomers or other ineligibe voters, non-citizen or whatever. Let's see what we can find about that.....

The country represents re 2010 that the population is 9.8M, with 5.8M eligibe to vote (age 18 plus), and 75% of those on the registration rolls(4.6M). .64M perm mail voters, 15%..
 
Last edited:
Here's an estimate of non-citizen LA County residents....

http://www.laalmanac.com/population/po23a.php

It adds up to about 1.6M.

Need to get a same-year population estimate, which I think is now over 10.2M from some source I saw and linked above.... still same year date is desired. We do have age-breakout from the US census link.... over 20% too young to vote....

it sorta convergtes that there are about 6 M eligible voters in the county. With 4.5M registered ()round number. and 3.3 who voted.

So if Judicial Watch is getting court victory for checking on over 1.5 who haven't voted for years or who are thought to ineligible on the rolls, how many registrants are there in all that?

4.5 M registered, of about 6M actually eligible, would be a 75% voter registration rate.... So where do we get possibly 1.5 M ineligible registrants?

There are ways to get estimates of these things.....

do a poll (survey) to ask people to give up their facts.... Do 75% of respondents actually claim they registered? I mean people on the ground, in the county.. Or do we get just 50%......

pore over government data compilations...... welfare participants, birth stats, whatever.

How about IRS tax filers in the county.... how many are there??? And can we get the info off of the tax forms about citizenship?

Privacy laws.

But can government agencies release statistical compilations relevant to a case in the courts if ordered by a court to respond to a subpoena?
 
Last edited:
I'll just pass on the argument here, as it seems to be the same argument why we should devote no resources to detecting or preventing any crime

This isn't the same at all.

Voter intimidation at the polls you're describing is a public safety issue, and there's already funds and programs allocated to that.

When your privately funded special interest groups can provide evidence that there IS statistically meaningful electoral fraud happening, let's talk about creating an expensive, bloated, multifactor authentication program that makes HG Wells look like snow white.

I'll be at the table that day.
 
I really do want to encourage you here. If you believe in something, keep at it. Just don't expect others to put on the effort you would without the evidence.

There's not really a way for me to not come across as horribly condescending, but something else I recommend would be instead of a lot of text opinion, you work on being more succinct with your messages? I know I get long winded sometimes, and it helps me to simplify my own thoughts.
 
Erection Fraud is a crime against women. It should be prosecuted to the full extent. If it's 5" or less it should be a misdemeanor. If it is greater than 7" it should be a felt in me. If between those signifiers it should be up to prostitiunial discretion.
 
“This was a calibration error of the touch-screen on the machine,” Scalzitti said. “When Mr. Moynihan used the touch-screen, it improperly assigned his votes due to improper calibration.”

Lol sure
 
This isn't the same at all.

Voter intimidation at the polls you're describing is a public safety issue, and there's already funds and programs allocated to that.

When your privately funded special interest groups can provide evidence that there IS statistically meaningful electoral fraud happening, let's talk about creating an expensive, bloated, multifactor authentication program that makes HG Wells look like snow white.

I'll be at the table that day.

This is fun rhetoric.

I think voter intimidation doesn't require police lines with billy clubbed jackbooted fully geared fully computered thugs running a complete gov profile on every citizen before "clearing" them as OK to vote.

And it doesn't necessarily mean violence from concerned citizens intent up getting the right vote.

laws need legal definitions of the terms, the acts proscrbed, and laws need some patrol and observation effort that is resource-efficient. People need to know the law, and be willing to come to the police with concerns, and law enforcement needs to impartial.

If anyone is turned away from the polling site for any wrong reason, the people responsible need appropriate legal consequences.

And, I admit, that's still quite an undertaking. Affordability is an issue.
 
I really do want to encourage you here. If you believe in something, keep at it. Just don't expect others to put on the effort you would without the evidence.

There's not really a way for me to not come across as horribly condescending, but something else I recommend would be instead of a lot of text opinion, you work on being more succinct with your messages? I know I get long winded sometimes, and it helps me to simplify my own thoughts.

This is really a very decent post.

Before I took off for a couple of days, I thought the article from realclearpolitics was helpful, at least for me, in organizing the aspects of this issue.

Only about 1000 actual fraud votes found by the effort JD made, but an important restoration of the federal election law Clinton sorted declared wasn't going to be enforced.

I admit to being very obtuse, and I gather links or sources in my own effort to understand stuff. Your posts have been helpful.
 
This is really a very decent post.

Before I took off for a couple of days, I thought the article from realclearpolitics was helpful, at least for me, in organizing the aspects of this issue.

Only about 1000 actual fraud votes found by the effort JD made, but an important restoration of the federal election law Clinton sorted declared wasn't going to be enforced.

I admit to being very obtuse, and I gather links or sources in my own effort to understand stuff. Your posts have been helpful.

The only ones not interested in voter fraud are the democrats. Where do you think the 3 million votes Trump lost by came from? wink
 
The only ones not interested in voter fraud are the democrats. Where do you think the 3 million votes Trump lost by came from? wink

LBJ in Texas, and Daley in Chicago..... long famous for their dead support bae of very dependable voters. It is apparently much easier to vote in the grave than roll over in there.

I calculate that in Russia, Stalin's wisdom proved convincing to many of his fan base worldwide:

"I don't care who votes, just who counts the votes"

Like lemmings..... or maybe penguins or even sheep..... Americans can be very patriotic about turning out to vote, apparently with more dedication to that ritual than to reading, or paying attention to the news. It is, for many, a sort of bragging rights social issue.

But our idea about ballot confidentiality or secrecy sorta gets turned against us.

I'd like to sell a new kind of "ballot" and "ballot box". Little glass balls of a certain chemical dye color, one color for each voting issue or for each candidate. You turn up at the judges' table and get yourself fingerprinted, and you fingerprints on all the little glass balls as well. The judge has to look at your voter id picture and information, which you must obtain from the country registrar after submitting citizenship and residence proofs. The election judge has to sign on the line before giving you your set of balls. Then you walk past the clear plastic bins with their identifying color code and ballot issue. You drop in your appropriate ball in the "Yes", " No", or "Candidate" bin. Since the balls are uniform in volume and weight, the "ballot box" will record a liqauid volume displacement and a weight change. The balls will be periodically removed, and weighed.

The process and all the operations handling the dispensing and counting of the balls will all be recorded on camera, and the "counting" will also be on video display continuously. When the last voter has cast the last ballot, the count will be publicly visible, and there will be no vans driving up the next day with harvested "ballots" from anywhere.

If a voter feels like there mighjt be a problem, he can ask for his balls to be verified. they will have his fingerprint, a RFID, and can be electronically sorted from the pile if wished, just to make sure nobody has been cheated in any way.

The fact is that "progressives", "globalists" and other sorts of ideologues who believe their grand cause justifies anything they can do to establish it over the public wisdom, are people who must be watched. They are principled liars. They lie because their beliefs demand it. They are Jason's people, who should not be called "liars" if only they believe their own toxic notions.

However, I don't think that rule of morality is consistent with the Ten Commandments, with Christian precepts, or any other self-consistent moral framework. It is evidence of delusional insanity, and should be a disqualification for voting. I mean, people like that have no integrity, no functional conscience, and indeed no humanity. They are the very definition of the Walking Dead, or the nonprescient victim of power-seeking sociopaths.

When I run across people who cannot respond to any reasonable comment with respect or comprehension, who just repeat todays talking points from their team managers, I know I don't have a very good chance of saving them from their delusions, but I must try.

It's the only decent, human, thing to do. The value of a human being is immense, and it's worth the effort to try to reclaim them from their state of witless delusional beliefs.
 
If a voter feels like there mighjt be a problem, he can ask for his balls to be verified.

I beg your pardon?

The fact is that "progressives", "globalists" and other sorts of ideologues who believe their grand cause justifies anything they can do to establish it over the public wisdom, are people who must be watched.

However, I don't think that rule of morality is consistent with the Ten Commandments, with Christian precepts, or any other self-consistent moral framework. It is evidence of delusional insanity, and should be a disqualification for voting. I mean, people like that have no integrity, no functional conscience, and indeed no humanity. They are the very definition of the Walking Dead, or the nonprescient victim of power-seeking sociopaths.

Wow, quite a totalitarian vision. Get those reeducation camps up and running....
 
Top