Massive Voter Fraud? Seems Doubtful.

Y’all likely remember during the campaign that the Donald was talking about the three million fraudulent votes that he said were cast by people in the country illegally. Seemed very unlikely to me, the number seemed way too large, but hey, these days who knows?

Once he became President, of course, Trump knew it would look terrible if the first thing he did after being elected was to go through the records looking for voter fraud. It’s not what a winner does, it would look vindictive, and the Donald cares a lot about appearances. Plus which, some Democrats have never wanted to look into voter fraud, for fear that they would find some.

For those not in on the joke, if the Democrats find voter fraud, that argues strongly for voter ID, and the Democratic line is that voter ID is racist. Curiously, in their view it’s not racist to require ID to buy beer, or get married, or get on an airplane, or go on welfare, or rent a car, but it is racist to require ID to vote. So the Democrats would rather not find out about any possible voter fraud, thank you very much.

So Trump instructs Sean Spicer, his Press Secretary, and KellyAnne Conway, his Adviser and unofficial spokeswoman, just keep telling the Press that’s what he believes. Three million.

At least I assume he tells them that, because when the Press Secretary and KellyAnne Conway got repeatedly asked by reporters before and after the Inauguration, they said yep, that’s what Trump believes. Three million. They mentioned what was found in Detroit. They talked about illegal aliens. They referenced the Pew study, which said that illegal aliens reported voting in significant numbers.

voter-fraud-2

As a result, the story continues to build, because the media can’t believe that the Donald could be that bull-goose looney to believe the number is three million. They keep asking about it.

Finally, the media gets exasperated, and a couple days ago during Spicer’s daily press briefing, after hearing once again that yes, Trump really does believe the claim of 3 million fraudulent votes, a reporter finally gets around to asking the obvious question.

I can’t find a record of it, but I watched it live, and the question was on the order of “Mr. Spicer, if President Trump really does believe that crazy story about illegal aliens voting, he’s President now, so why isn’t he investigating it? I mean, three million votes, if that is true, that is very, very serious threat to the election process. He should be looking into it, and he’s not. Does that mean he doesn’t really believe the three million number?”. Reasonable question. And many of the other reporters nodded their heads and murmured. As I watched it was obvious many of them thought the reporter had scored a big point against Trump by showing that Trump was not serious about the three million number, and that the reporter had caught Trump in a deception.

And the next day in response?

President Trump announced Wednesday that he will be asking for a “major investigation” into alleged nationwide voter fraud — a day after his press secretary was grilled on Trump’s claims that 3 million to 5 million people had voted illegally in November.

Trump is basically saying well heck, guys, I wasn’t going to look into it, never crossed my mind, but hey, since you reporters are insisting on an investigation, OK, you’ve got a deal, let’s just see how bad things did get out in Los Angeles, and in New York, and in Detroit … and that is how we ended up with an official Government investigation into possible voter fraud in the 2016 election.

Did Trump plan it out that way? No clue … but when the chance came he assuredly played it out that way.

Talk about a bargain … at the end of the day, Trump swapped a valueless and very doubtful claim of three million illegal votes for a “by popular demand of the media” voter fraud investigation that he likely figures will uncover all kinds of Democratic malfeasance in the voting process. Not a bad deal at all.

Not only that, but you can be sure that will be the last we ever hear from the media about the putative three million illegal votes, he’s taken that issue totally off the table. If they ask, Spicer will just say it’s under investigation …

Gotta say … it’s gonna be a fun four or perhaps eight years watching this particular three-ring circus.

w.

Usual Request: If you comment please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE REFERRING TO, so we can all understand what you are discussing.

Advertisements

72 thoughts on “Massive Voter Fraud? Seems Doubtful.

  1. And if they only end up with half a million illegal aliens in NY and CA, which is a believable number, then the case for voter ID and citizenship confirmation is a slam dunk. You’re not the first person I’ve talked to who noticed the brilliance of the gambit.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. As a citizen of the old world I find it absolutely astonishing that voters do not have to provide documentary evidence of citizenship in order to register to vote and then valid ID at the polling station. Here in France we have to register with the local mayor’s office during the year preceding an election and then provide ID when we turn up to vote (well technically, but as we live in a small community and everyone knows everyone else that last formality is often observed in the breach). From where I sit proof of citizenship is essential for franchise.

    Liked by 2 people

    • It would not be astonishing if you understood how the Democratic Party works.

      They are not even remotely interested in fair elections. They just want votes. And since they continually promise people like illegal aliens and other criminals a free ride, those people have overwhelmingly voted Democrat.

      It would not surprise me a bit if some apoplectic Democrat insulted me and claimed that is all a lie, but in fact it is very clear and unambiguous history.

      Like

    • I agree with Bertief here, it is amazing that greater control is not directed at who can vote in the US. The electoral roll in the UK is routinely updated via a check on who lives where and are they eligible for inclusion on the electoral roll. Although how this information is tested to ensure it is correct I am not entirely sure in all scenarios. The details are subsequently assembled into a list and used at polling stations to confirm who is voting by crossing off each voter as they turn up. Until recently no id has been demanded at the polling stations but this is due to change, very much a sign of the times I feel, something that is quite right and should be the case in all modern electoral processes given the fluidity of populations and the dishonesty that is consuming trust.

      Like

      • You forgot to mention the postal voting racket, made easier by Labour in the UK. A judge commented that it is worthy of a banana republic. Still, little is done about it. I received invitations to register for postal votes for a number of ex-tenants while spending a year repairing damage.

        Like

      • The British system used to work, in large measure, on trust. It was assumed that there wouldn’t be much fraud except in constituencies with lots of Irish residents. Mr Blair took advantage of this to modify things to make vote fraud easier. My own interpretation was that he was indulging in lazy, racist stereotyping, assuming that Pakistanis (and presumably other Moslems) would cheat in large numbers in favour of his Labour Party. Alas, apparently there’s some evidence that his lazy, racist stereotyping might have worked quite well.

        Like

    • It’s not astonishing when you realize that the registration process frequently is controlled by Democrats in the coastal states. As noted in the post they don’t want to see anything wrong because a loose system is to their benefit. The Secretary of State in Rhode Island openly admitted that voter roles have not been cleaned up for many years because it’s too much work. Her staff will remove deceased voters from the list when they find out about it, but they don’t try very hard to be scrupulous about it.

      Like

      • Not just CA and NY, Allegheny County and the Philthydelphia metro region are good examples of total Democrat Party control of voter registration here in PA. All over US there are entrenched Democrat control of many government offices/functions, vote registration being an important one, and often voting out a Democrat politician does nothing to remove Democrat functionaries inside the bureaucracies.

        Like

    • Australia has a well-known saying of “Vote early and vote often”.

      We have mandatory voting for those over 18. But:
      – no chasing individuals to ensure registration
      – electorates with close numbers between the 2 major parties often have many ‘new’ registered voters in that area just prior to an election
      – multiple voting booths in an electorate, each with a paper list of voters
      – no requirement to prove who you are when voting, just a verbal name and address (and a verbal declaration that you have not voted previously).
      – no requirement to actually vote as it is a paper system and no-one can see whether you complete the forms
      – lax follow up when analysis of voting shows individual names having voted multiple time

      A few years ago we decided, by vote, we did not want an ‘Australia card’ to be used to prove identity for all government services.

      Like

  3. The only reason to oppose ID when voting is to facilitate fraudulent voting.

    DJT has masterfully pushed the press into calling for an investigation into voter rolls, an action that should have been taken decades ago. Why do Democrats fight tooth&nail to stop counties from checking the status of their registered voters? Why do they fight tooth&nail to keep dead people on voter registrations? Why are they so determined to stop anyone from checking any of this?

    And lets not forget Motor Voter, registering people to vote when they are issued a driver’s license. In CA the issuing of driver licenses to illegal aliens has also put them on the voting rolls. Which other states are issuing driver licenses/IDs to illegal aliens, which automatically registers them to vote? Seems I read Washington and New York jumped on that particular band wagon. Perhaps this verification call from “media” will be a good thing, in spite of the source.

    Like

  4. My voting experience here in Canada is that there is a voting list that I somehow got on based on proper credentials and when I vote I have to present my government issued i.d. to my neighbour that has known me for 50 years and my name is duly stroked off the list. If I was dead it would be very difficult for someone to cast my ballot for me unless he was a doppelganger with credible paperwork and my death was kept a secret. The US practice seems to discount the value of voting rights to near zero. I did hear Obama encourage illegal aliens to belly up and vote, so I have no doubt that many of them dutifully complied. Other Democrat operatives have been seen coaching non citizens how to register and vote illegally. The lawlessness is stunning to me as an outsider. Of course that’s not the only place I notice illegality being promoted. Did Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch ever care a whit about the law? How can you have a Justice department that is dedicated to partisan political objectives instead of the law and call yourself a free society? I don’t like to criticize my neighbours but isn’t it time to clean house? I’m watching to see if President Trump will truly drain the swamp. And if he does where will all that contaminated water go?

    Like

    • In rural areas and small towns here in US it is much the same, in densely populated metropolitan areas not so much. In some areas organized efforts to have people vote multiple times have been documented over the years, which Democrats and other leftists immediately discount as “anecdotal”, which apparently means fake to them.

      Over the years I have had several foreign nationals of my acquaintance ask me why Americans tolerate open criminality by members of our government, others have marveled at how little of it there is compared to their homelands. Guess it is a bit of perspective, in the end.

      Like

  5. In Austria you have to register where you live and that also puts you in the voting register. You then get sent a card before every election where to vote. On voting day you have to bring this card and an ID to your designated voting place in order to cast your vote.

    Like

    • Well that sounds sensible, Otto Weinzierl, which means that our Democrat Party would oppose it tooth and nail. It seems that the Democrats always claim that Republicans are trying to suppress minority voters when Republicans try to institute requiring a photo ID to vote. Photo ID is too much of a burden, say the Democrats.

      Ha! The hypocrisy of that is evident when all states require an ID to drive, purchase alcohol, or buy cigarettes, rent a car and I suppose a few other things. As best I know, all states also will provide a State photo ID for non-drivers at low cost; $5 or $10 USD.

      Like

  6. Two points:

    One, a problem will be that the media will ultimately claim that a voter fraud investigation by a Republican administration which finds various problems with Democrat voting, uh, “techniques” is biased and not valid.

    Second, regarding a Voter ID Card, I often wonder why, if it were required nationally, all of those community organizer groups (both D and R) wouldn’t go out and help each prospective voter obtain that Voter ID Card?

    Like

    • It will turn up irregularities from all sides, actually, as it should. The real point is this will have to be followed with substantive actions against all actors creating voting irregularities, AND a thorough vetting and removal of all registrants who do not, for which ever reasons, belong on voter registration rolls. Not just a bunch of media blahblah.

      Like

  7. I grew up in Chicago, where the art of manufacturing votes was a fine art. There are basically three ways to steal votes: (1) impersonate someone legitimately registered; (2) inflate the registration roles with ineligible voters; and (3) stuff the ballot box.

    In the big city “machine” politics they did all three but the primary method was (1). Almost all city employees were patronage workers who owed their jobs to the mayor. Regardless of which city department they worked for, their real job was to turn out the vote on election day. They were organized by precinct and within precincts by block; it was someone’s job to know every voter, and make sure every voter favorably disposed towards the current city hall was registered to vote. It was the block captain’s job to know each voter on the block — who didn’t vote or wasn’t voting this year; who needed a ride to the polls; who needed a little “incentive” (cash, booze or both) to vote, etc.

    On election day the precinct and block organizations worked to turn out the vote: get people to the polls, “help” them if they are confused about the voting machines, and keep an exit poll at each station. The numbers were reported back to city hall to make sure they were on track to win all the important contests. If the numbers weren’t good enough, the instructions went out to each precinct on how many additional votes were needed and in turn to the block captains who would supply the requisite number of names for registered voters who would not be showing up on their own to vote. Patronage workers would be rounded up, given a name (written on a matchbook cover according to legend), and taken to polling places, often in city buses. They marched in, gave a name off the matchbook, and voted as instructed. There are tales of some cases so blatant that the same person would vote two or three times at the same polling place, promptly getting back in line as a different person after each vote.

    Unless registration rolls are regularly audited, they contain names of people who have died or moved away. The precinct organization keeps track of these cases to use if needed. In the last few years of his life my father lived at two addresses in Chicago and it would not surprise me to find he was still voting at both. It is this technique that voter ID requirements are aimed at stopping. Democrats fiercely oppose voter ID laws; it is easy to understand why.

    This method is labor-intensive and works mostly in populated urban areas where voters are generally unknown to poll workers. It does not scale up to statewide and national races. In the 1960 presidential election Republicans claimed vote-stealing in Chicago tipped the election to Kennedy. They demanded a recount, which under Illinois law they could do provided they paid for it. The recount started and midway through it was clear there were not enough stolen votes for Kennedy to make a difference so it was dropped and the original results certified. This disappointed some people in Chicago because the recount was finding a lot of questionable votes for local candidates (more important to the Daley machine) and had the recount completed it might have changed some of those races.

    The second method — inflating the registration lists with in eligible voters — exploits weak ID and validation requirements in the registration process itself. Convicted felons are usually prohibited from voting, but unless the registrar does a criminal background check (which costs money), how will they enforce this exclusion? Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/23/us/governor-terry-mcauliffe-virginia-voting-rights-convicted-felons.html in April, in time to get registered and vote in the November election. Technically, this is not voter fraud because the felon exclusion is by state law and in Virginia the governor has the power to override it.

    The Trump claim of illegal voters is based on the assumption that non-US citizens are registering to vote. This has never been established on any wide scale, but it would take a thorough audit of the registration rolls to determine either way. Guess what else Democrats consistently oppose?

    My gut feeling is there are a fair number of illegal immigrants registered and voting. One thing they have all demonstrated is they are willing to break our laws if it benefits them. Once you decide to be (and continue to be) a lawbreaker, which laws you break becomes a matter of a risk/reward calculation. Compared to the risks they’ve already taken to get here illegally, obtain forged documents, get jobs and/or get public assistance illegally, the risk of getting caught for voting illegally are very small and the potential reward is huge. And given the proven antics of leftist “community” organizations like Project Acorn, I also do not doubt there are people actively working to help them.

    Does it add up to 3-5 million? I doubt it. At least not yet.

    The third method (stuffing the ballot box) is probably not widespread. Even before electronic voting machines, precincts in Chicago mostly used the mechanical voting machines. Paper ballots were used only for judicial elections (as of 1972, the last year I was an independent election observer). The main danger for ballot-box stuffing occurs when the ballot boxes are transported away from the polling place to a central location to be opened and counted. I think in the US this occurs mainly in rural areas, but it is probably common is under-developed countries.

    The rise of computerized voting machines (Georgia now uses Diebold systems) certainly raises the possibility they can be “stuffed” remotely, but I can’t say how real the possibility is. As I recall, Diebold refused to release the software for an independent audit because it contained trade secrets. In this same regard, there is a complaint by the Georgia Secretary of State that Homeland Security attempted to hack Georgia’s voter registration systems. Georgia claims the attempts were detected and defeated, but perhaps other states are less prepared or more sophisticated attacks would have succeeded.

    Although I think Trump’s claim is way over the mark, several good things could come from a general vote fraud investigation. (1) Reasonable and uniform practices in verifying voter eligibility at registration; (2) Regular auditing of the registration lists to purge people who have died, moved away, or become ineligible for other reasons; (3) Reasonable and uniform voter ID requirements; (4) professional assessment on the vulnerability of electronic voting systems. Democrats can be counted on to oppose the first 3.

    Like

    • After the 2000 election which turned on a very narrow margin in Florida for Bush, I got a huge belly laugh out of the announcement that among the luminaries coming to Florida to “make sure every vote was counted” was then Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, son of former Chicago major Richard J. Daley (“Boss”), who ran Chicago and Cook County for over 20 years courtesy of the vote-manufacturing methods detailed above.

      Like

        • Yes, that was a case of “inverse ballot-box stuffing”. It turned on a technicality of Florida law that stated absentee ballots had to be postmarked by a certain date prior to the election. Democrats succeeded in getting absentee ballots from overseas military bases (which do not go through the regular Post Office and hence are not “postmarked” at all) excluded under this provision. Everyone assumed that military votes would break heavily for Bush, but since the challenge was successful they were never counted and we do not know for certain. What we do know is the Democrat slogan “make sure every vote is counted” does not really mean every vote.

          This was part of a pattern of Florida Supreme Court (5 justices, all appointed by Democrat Governors) decisions that overruled the letter of the law when it benefited Gore but strictly endorsed a literal reading if it harmed Bush. The Democrat mantra still widely repeated and believed today is the US Supreme Court “gave” the election to Bush. They totally ignore the pattern of multiple biased decisions by the FL Supreme Court which favored Gore.

          Like

          • In the case of Bush vs Gore, the Florida Supreme Court acted to change the voting laws that required certified votes to be submitted to the Secretary of State of Florida by a certain date. The U S Supreme Court found that change illegal as only the State legislature could make and change laws so they struck down the Florida Supreme Court decision. This forced the hanging chad counties to stop the recount and certify the results. The Constitution requires the electors in all States to meet on the same day to vote, which is now Dec 19th. There was a danger that electoral votes of Florida would not be counted if Florida missed that date. I believe this was the Dems intention all along. Keep in mind that if Al Gore had won his home state of Tennessee he would have won the election no natter which way Florida voted. We thank the good people of Tennessee for keeping this fool out of the White House.

            Like

      • Yea, so many military personnel who are resident in FLA and their votes being juggled depending on who is jiggling the controls in a particular election cycle. As governor here in PA Ed was always jamming his thumb on various scales, was so glad to see him slither away, leaving a trail of slime all the way to FLA.

        Like

    • Willis wrote: “Donald was talking about the three million fraudulent votes that he said were cast by people in the country illegally.”

      Respectfully, I believe this is an incorrect interpretation of The Donald’s claim. I believe he may be adding up the various kinds of fraud – mail ballot fraud, double voting fraud, (As Alan Watt details) to sum to 3 million. Plus or minus a significant fudge factor. Voting by non-citizens is only a fraction of the frauds.

      The Jill Stein led recount in Detroit reveals one sloppy sort of problem. People were given ballots without signing a poll roster (the signature would have thereby rendered themselves or anyone else ineligible to cast a vote in that name a second time.) And the ballot counting machine appears to have counted more ballots than were retained in the properly secured ballot box. Possible the counter was corrupted. Possible the same ballot was fed through the counter multiple times. Perhaps one ballot box was “short” but another was “long” on the collected ballots. But the sloppiness indicates there was nothing to stop one person from coming thru – WITH AN ID, EVEN — announcing a name, being given a ballot for that name, feeding it into a counter, then (because poll book went unsigned) getting back into line and announcing himself (and possibly presenting ID) a second or 300th time.

      There is very little to stop a citizen from voting in a national election under two addresses. Say Dick Cheney is registered to vote at the near-Halliburton address in Houston Texas but decides to declare himself, for various reasons, a voter near his Ranch in Wyoming. Wyoming will verify he is a property owning citizen there, and register him in a poll book, issue him a ballot, etc. But there is no mechanism to tell Texas he should be dropped from the Houston poll book. In fact, should Dick ask for it, Houston (Harris County) would promptly mail him an absentee ballot. Would we argue that rich people with lots of property in various states should vote multiple times?

      For a technical person view of the sort of thing Mr Watts describes, see an old, but still valid, text in the public domain http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2810

      PLUNKITT OF TAMMANY HALL
      By George Washington Plunkitt

      A Series of Very Plain Talks on Very Practical Politics, Delivered by Ex-senator George Washington Plunkitt, the Tammany Philosopher, from His Rostrum—the New York County Court House Bootblack Stand

      Like

  8. They keep forgetting, DT is a business-man, not a politician. He knows just how to yank chains. I heard someone the other day (on the BBC, fer Christ’s sake!) explain how Trump can suck all the oxygen out of a room: his way of getting attention.

    Scott Adams also covered this in his Blog before the election.

    Like

  9. Voter fraud will occur anyhow. In Argentina voting is mandatory and penalties are imposed for those that didn’t comply with the law. Only those persons that are at 500 kilometers away from their voting place can be exempted -but they must go that day to a police station and register his presence. The voter’s database contains all people of voting age (between 16 and 70 years-old) and as people access the voting place, (normally public schools) there are several tables with a “chief of the table” and representatives of the main parties checking that the voter is the person he claims to be. He will surrender his DNI (National Identity document that has a clear photo of the voter) where all data relating his identity, military service, health condition, and several other data is written down and updated as required. Even so, fraud is done in spite of the checking of representatives of the parties that will compose the final document showing the voting results that usually contain several errors. It is normal that dead people keep voting during years, or people voting in four or five different places.

    Like

  10. Living in Appomattox, Virginia, Where our Nation Came Together and a mere 128 miles from the center of power inside the beltway, I have never been allowed to vote without presenting some form of ID! Our polling place workers accept Voter Registration cards, drivers licenses, and, in my case, my passport which is always on my person. (It is a sad aside that many of the poll workers have never laid eyes on an official US passport….)

    So, where it is possible to vote without showing some form of identification? I’ve been hearing this nonsense for years now, how it is somehow racist to require people to show proper identification to vote. How is it racist or even intrusive to require proof of identity/citizenship before casting a vote in an election?

    PMK

    Like

    • According to this article, quite a few US residents live in states which do not have strict voter ID requirements:

      The NCSL categorises state-level voter ID laws as follows:

      Strict photo ID required: Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Virginia, and Wisconsin.[13]
      Strict non-photo ID required: Arizona and Ohio.
      Non-Strict photo ID required: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Texas.
      Non-Strict non-photo ID required: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Kentucky, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, and Washington.
      No ID required to vote at ballot box: California, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, West Virginia, Wyoming, and Washington, D.C.

      So major population states such as California, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey and Massachussetts have no ID requirements at all. Two other populous states, Florida and Texas have “non-strict” rules where something other than a validated photo ID will suffice. The federal courts have put on hold Texas’ attempt to enact a stricter voter ID requirement.

      You and I live in two of the handful of states with a strict photo-ID voter requirement.

      Like

      • Rats, that is a sad commentary, to say the least. I understand that there is a lot of resistance to purging the voter rolls every so often too, to get rid of deceased voters and voters who have moved to another precinct. Obviously something needs to be done about all of this and I hope it happens soon.

        PMK

        Like

      • Further, based on the reference cited above, it looks like 293 electoral votes come from states which have no voter ID requirement at all.

        Like

    • That is freakin’ hilarious, 0ssqss. From the article:

      Trump argument bolstered: Clinton could have received 800,000 votes from noncitizens, study finds

      Hillary Clinton is estimated to have collected 81 percent of noncitizen votes, which may have helped her carry a state, a researcher says. (Associated Press)

      Hillary Clinton garnered more than 800,000 votes from noncitizens on Nov. 8, an approximation far short of President Trump’s estimate of up to 5 million illegal voters but supportive of his charges of fraud.

      Political scientist Jesse Richman of Old Dominion University in Norfolk, Virginia, has worked with colleagues to produce groundbreaking research on noncitizen voting, and this week he posted a blog in response to Mr. Trump’s assertion.

      Based on national polling by a consortium of universities, a report by Mr. Richman said 6.4 percent of the estimated 20 million adult noncitizens in the U.S. voted in November. He extrapolated that that percentage would have added 834,381 net votes for Mrs. Clinton, who received about 2.8 million more votes than Mr. Trump.

      Looks like the DOTUS might be at least partially right ,..

      w.

      Like

    • It’s pretty squishy, being based on extrapolation from polls, but certainly buttresses President Trump’s claim—and he wasn’t just talking about illegal-alien voting. It definitely is time for an investigation.

      Now about those ‘sanctuary cities’. . . How many are really sanctuaries for illegal voters?

      /Mr Lynn

      Like

  11. If 6-7% of illegal immigrants voted, that could have swung New Hampshire which was decided by less than 3,000 votes. Minnesota has same day registration and no voter ID. 500,000 people in Minnesota registered and voted on Election Day. There is no way to tell if these are all legitimate voters. But that is the whole point. The Obama administration refused to allow states to even check that their voter rolls were correct.
    In some Democrat precincts, there are more registered voters than people counted in the census.

    Like

  12. In US Presidential elections, turnout weighs far more heavily than vote fraud. In 2016 just 55.4% of registered voters actually went to the polls and cast ballots. That’s down from every election since 1996 (53.5%) and down considerably from 2008 (63.7%). The eligible voters who don’t actually vote swamp even Trump’s claim of illegal voters by an order of magnitude.

    What happened in 2016 was partly that Trump attracted some previously non-voters and Democrats, but mostly that Clinton depressed the turnout among typically Democrat voters. The number of people who were really excited to make history by electing the first female president was smaller than the number who wanted to see something different from the typical politician.

    Trump was the more interesting candidate and down the stretch he had a lot more energy to make multiple major appearances in a single day. Clinton needed several days to rest after each event, which were mostly limited to fund-raising in the homes of the uber-rich. Both candidates carried considerable baggage but Trump promised what many people really wanted to hear, and they forgave his faults.

    Republicans should not count on eliminating vote fraud to win the next election. They need to focus on increasing turnout. And they should pray the Democrat candidate in 2020 is once again Hillary Clinton.

    Like

  13. In 2008 Al Franken was declared the winner of Minnesota’s Senate race by 225 votes out of over 3 million cast.
    How many illegal votes were cast? Keep in mind that Franken was the deciding vote for Obamacare.

    Like

    • See my comment below.

      Were I to bus people around and have them vote at a hundred random stations. Then I might get 100×100 votes for the price of a bus and some food.

      What’s a vote/investment worth?

      Always reminded of Richard Prior (Brewster’s Millions) suggesting that Politicians would only spend 6 million to get a 60 thousand job if they knew they would make a profit. (80’s money?)

      Like

  14. I’m not clear [as a Brit] as to how eg California conducts Presidential voting.

    Could I, as a Brit on holiday in California, simply drive up a road (i5?) and vote at every station on the way back to the Airport, not ever having been a resident?

    Anyone wish to clarify?

    Like

    • You walk into a polling place, they ask you your name, they then look that name up in their book of registered voters and ask you the address (if you can read upside down you an read it from the book). They then rotate the book and have you sign it.

      If it’s a primary, they ask you what parties ballot you want to vote in.

      They give you the ballot and you go vote.

      To get in the book, you have to register. This is a checkbox when you get a drivers license. There are also people outside major stores near the primary, asking people if they are registered and if not, offering to register them. This involves filling out name, address, and (optionally) party declaration, followed by a signature. These forms are then turned in to the Secretary of State’s (for California) and show up shortly.

      If you are not in the book, you can still ask for a ballot and fill it out, they get put into a different container (Provisional Ballots), that are supposed to be validated before they are counted.

      Like

      • I’m not going to suggest that here in Britain we have anything better, what with postal voting and all …

        But It does sound like a system open to fraud.

        Not quite as bad as I had thought, not inspiring though.

        Like

        • given that the voter rolls are public information, anyone is able to get the list of registered voters and their addresses. so the “tell me your address” thing is a blocker for only casual fraud.

          Like

  15. Keep in mind that 6.7% is a self-reported number- people who admit to have voted and then admit to being aliens: i.e. they are admitting to having committed two crimes, illegal registration then illegal voting (or three crimes if illegal aliens- illegal entry, illegal registration, illegal voting). I suspect a great many will simply lie, claim citizenship. (Why not, they lied to register?)

    I well recall a in-depth study done in the early 80s by Regan’s new US Attorney of three precincts in San Jose- found 1000 illegal aliens registered. (The story was buried by the Merc and the Old Chron: “racism”- he looked at three heavily Hispanic precincts.) I wouldn’t be surprised if there were enough illegal alien votes in California alone to make up Hillary’s majority.

    Liked by 1 person

  16. Just for comparison, In New Zealand I looked up the qualifications for voting in an upcoming election result of search.
    …..
    In New Zealand you must be on the electoral roll if you are eligible to enrol.

    You are qualified to enrol and vote if:

    you are 18 years or older AND
    you are a New Zealand citizen or permanent resident AND
    you have lived in New Zealand for one year or more continuously at some point.
    …….
    Some Pacific Islanders have similar rights after living in the country for 12 months.
    ………….
    I forgot to re -enrol when I moved house and so will not vote in the next election.

    http://www.elections.org.nz/voters/enrol-check-or-update-now/who-can-and-cant-enrol

    Like

  17. Willis

    I think you have said elsewhere that you are not a big fan of videos, I believe (my paraphrase) that you prefer the written word because you can process it faster. That makes sense, but I can’t find this particular story in writing.

    Here are 3 Videos on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rigging+the+election+)

    #1 – Rigging the election
    #2 – Voter fraud (how to do it)
    #3 – Hillary was personally involved

    This is Video #2….. Paid Democrat operatives discussing (& admitting) their methods of committing voter fraud.

    jw

    Like

  18. What if even just one state is identified where voter fraud cost Trump that state’s votes in the Electoral College? To this foreigner that would seem quite enough of a discovery to justify the hullabaloo.

    Like

    • You have touched on one of the primary reasons for the Electoral College. Ever fearful of undue outside influence on the election of the President, it was the thoughts of the framers that it would be extremely difficult to interfere with 13 separate State votes especially if they all occurred on the same day. Fast forward to 2016 and the same reasoning applies. To subvert the electoral votes of a State through illegal voting could happen but it would take an impossible effort to do so in enough States to swing the election.

      Like

    • From what was seen in the recounts Jill Stein insisted on, Trump picked up some votes, Hillary lost some votes, Stein was nowhere to be seen. In Detroit and Philthidelphia the recounts turned up more votes than registered voters, so it would seem recounts would most likely not hurt DJT.

      Like

  19. Good morning all,

    Been busy and couldn’t weigh in. I think the 3 technique list that Mr. Watts discusses is missing two crucial innovations of the last 20 years that act as a force multiplier for deployment of fraudulent votes, to wit,
    early voting and absentee voting.

    Early voting is used to allow more time for systematic in-person fraud. And absentee voting is so very loosey goosey that it is an open invitation to fraud. No reason needed for early voting, and no reason need be given or proven for the request of an absentee ballot. The only requirement is that the request come from a validly registered address. Prior to the changes mentioned above, almost all jurisdictions required affidavits of hardship, and quite a few also required physically picking up the absentee ballot with ID at the registrar’s office, and early voting? What are you, nuts? The changes easing ballot access for absentee voting rolled out in the 90s, under President Clinton, to foment increased voter participation.

    So you say, what was the practical effect of that? I will tell you a story. A family member is very long in the tooth, mentally functional, but immobile, in a retirement community in the city where we all live. The center staff went to each resident, many of whom are non compus mentis, and had them all sign or mark requests for absentee ballots. As the weeks went by, our family member repeatedly asked for her ballot, and her lunchroom companions also asked where their ballots were. Staff said they must be lost, and said they requested new absentee ballots from the county registrar. Long story short, family member never cast a ballot, and we never found out what happened to the original ballots… I am ashamed to admit that I did not get on my horse, with my torches and pitchforks and ride to the county registrars office to demand an accounting.

    Let’s recapitulate:
    1. More than half of the residents have moderate to severe mental competence problems, yet ballots were procured for all.
    2. The first round of ballots never showed up. There are over 400 residents at this facility, so the absentee ballots would have taken up 4 to 6 mail trays. The staff was palpably indifferent, and in at least one case, resistant, to requests for information and assistance. Color me suspicious.
    3. It is more likely than not that the initial ballots were voted on behalf of the residents. And there is no method in place to validate the requests, or the submitted ballots. I live in a major southern city on the third coast, and our city is ‘vibrant’ with legions of residents of unknown legal status… Just saying…

    And I am also somewhat comfortable with psychometrics, and not bothered by a voting participation rate of around 50%, because roughly half of humanity has a lower than body temperature IQ… Consider that fact for a second, and ponder the arrant imbecility of REQUIRING all to vote…

    And as to the ODU study, a commenter above said something about “…those were just the ones that were willing to admit to 2 crimes…” What the commenter is referring to is the Social Desirability/Impression management effect. The normal expected response is to deny illegal status (you never know who is looking at this” and to deny illegal voting, for the same reason.

    Anyhow, I fear that the true dimension of illegal ballot casting may be closer to DJTs estimate than to zero.

    Like

    • Two items I have been long opposed to. Having been in the military and voted using absentee ballot, if you are not aware enough of the elections in which you should be voting, or are too lazy to look at a calendar and know when your vote actually needs to be cast, then you are not well informed enough to vote. Period. Full stop. Early Voting is a primary vector for fraudulent voting.

      Like

  20. one note on the issue of low voter participation rates.

    I wonder how much of the ‘low turnout’ is due to dead or moved voters not being removed from the rolls.

    If the investigation that Trump called for just cleans this up and makes the ‘turnout percentages’ more accurate, it will be a good service for the country.

    Like

  21. The swamp rats in both the Democratic and the Republican parties would prefer that there be no detailed investigation of voter fraud. Both have been associated with political machines that controlled, or in some cases still control parts of the country, from rural areas to large cities. And, I would guess they both have taken part in rigging recent elections, local if not national.

    Like

    • One small quibble. “democratic” is a word descriptive of a specific political process. “Democrat” is the name of the Party. Keep it clear and concise, otherwise people become confused. Oh. Too late. Never mind.

      Liked by 1 person

      • 2hotel9 January 28, 2017 at 5:34 pm

        One small quibble. “democratic” is a word descriptive of a specific political process. “Democrat” is the name of the Party. Keep it clear and concise, otherwise people become confused. Oh. Too late. Never mind.

        Say what? The official group that runs the party is called the “DNC”, the “Democratic National Committee. You better go tell them they got it all wrong, it should be called the “Democrat National Committee”.

        The difference is not the WORD, Hotel. The difference is the CAPITALIZATION. Keep it clear and concise, otherwise people become confused. Oh. Too late. Never mind.

        w.

        Like

        • OK, I see this is REALLY difficult for people to understand, so one more once. “The name of the Party is DEMOCRAT. “Democratic” is a term which is descriptive of a particular political process.” Read these two sentences over and over, you may just figure it out.

          Like

    • Hey, J, sorry for the delay. If you put two or more links into a message it holds it for moderation, and it’s just me moderating.

      I picked the clearest one of the three and approved it, and deleted the other two as you requested.

      All the best,

      w.

      Like

  22. I don’t seem to be allowed to post a direct link to a YouTube video.

    I’ll try it this way, search YouTube for ‘Rigging the Election – Video II: Mass Voter Fraud’

    Democrat operatives blatantly admitting to voter fraud.

    I wonder what Trump’s DOJ will think if this?

    jw

    Like

  23. From Ballotpedia,

    Voter identification laws by state

    “HIGHLIGHTS

    As of December 2016, 31 states enforced voter identification requirements. A total of 16 states required voters to present photo identification, while 15 accepted other forms of identification.

    Commonly accepted forms of ID include driver’s licenses, state-issued identification cards, and military identification cards.

    According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, voter ID requirements come in two general forms: strict and non-strict. Under strict requirements, a voter who does not possess the required form of identification may be required to cast a provisional ballot. Under non-strict requirements, a voter who does not have the necessary identification may still vote without casting a provisional ballot.[1]”

    https://ballotpedia.org/Voter_identification_laws_by_state#tab=Details_by_state

    Like

  24. Pingback: Voter Fraud Fraud | Skating Under The Ice

You are invited to add your comments. Please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE DISCUSSING so we can all be clear on your subject.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s