Dems Doing What Dems Do: Ballot Box Stuffing

[Spurtacular]

https://www.inquirer.com/news/voter-fraud-philadelphia-ward-leader-judge-of-elections-domenick-demuro-guilty-plea-20200521.html
https://www.phillyvoice.com/voter-fraud-south-philly-judge-elections-guilty-domenick-demuro-democrat-voting-machines/


:lmao It's a conspiracy!
https://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=192592&p=5690977&viewfull=1#post5690977

[Bill_Brasky]

I stuffed your mom's box last night.

[ElNono]

So he got caught... the system works!

[Reck]

So he got caught... the system works!

All of them do, tbh.

Back in 2016 there were at least 2 reportings of people trying to vote twice for Trump. :lol

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/crime-and-courts/2017/07/07/iowa-woman-charged-voting-twice-trump-pleads-guilty/459718001/
https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/crime/article146938034.html

There might be more. It's rampant here and there.

[DMC]

So if someone catches a roach in a roach trap, there are probably no more roaches untrapped and the system works?

[ElNono]

So if someone catches a roach in a roach trap, there are probably no more roaches untrapped and the system works?

When the system catches up to double voting cases, which itself is fairly granular, it's a solid indicator the system is working pretty well.

I wouldn't go as far as "all", as Reck said, but clearly we're far from 'rampant' voting fraud going undetected.

[DMC]

When the system catches up to double voting cases, which itself is fairly granular, it's a solid indicator the system is working pretty well.

I wouldn't go as far as "all", as Reck said, but clearly we're far from 'rampant' voting fraud going undetected.

I disagree. So catching a lot of border crossers means the system of border patrol works pretty well? You have no idea how many roaches are in the kitchen, you just think the ones you caught must be most of them.

Undetected means just that, how can you know you're far from something that's undetected?

[ElNono]

I disagree. So catching a lot of border crossers means the system of border patrol works pretty well? You have no idea how many roaches are in the kitchen, you just think the ones you caught must be most of them.

Undetected means just that, how can you know you're far from something that's undetected?

Except we know we're not catching a lot of border crossers, because eventually we notice a lot of them in our cities. So it's pretty evident when it works and doesn't work.

That's the problem with 'ballot stuffing' and anything 'rampant', it's simply evident when it happens. It's not like both parties don't have people monitoring elections.

We had a commission appointed specifically to investigate this by the POTUS, a promoter of this stupid conspiracy, that was disbanded when nothing of note was found.

I'm all for oversight, so I'm glad he did that and dispelled any myths.

[General Virtue]

So if someone catches a roach in a roach trap, there are probably no more roaches untrapped and the system works?

One caught, so all caught. OBVIOUSLY.

[tenbeersbold]

Hah,NO political party wants to seriously investigate voter fraud
Then people would realize truly how rotten the whole pay to rent representation system is rigged.

Only way to fairly run govt is to make it term limited/no pay and anonymously served.Oh and bar all millionaires and up from serving.
Oh and shrink the Fed by half at least.Reintroduce pensions for ALL jobs ban unions from investing in the market

Too many useless people/depts sucking up taxpayers money

[Spurtacular]

So if someone catches a roach in a roach trap, there are probably no more roaches untrapped and the system works?

Amazing how someone who likes to pass himself off as a person of high intelligence so blatantly uses fallacies. Now watch him clutch his pearls upon being called out.

[clambake]

Sounds like a great idea. Think I’ll give it a try

[Will Hunting]

Sounds like a great idea. Think I’ll give it a try
King Soros pays me $$$$$ to do it.

[DMC]

King Soros pays me $$$$$ to do it.

jooz no surprise tbh

[DMC]

Except we know we're not catching a lot of border crossers, because eventually we notice a lot of them in our cities. So it's pretty evident when it works and doesn't work.

That's the problem with 'ballot stuffing' and anything 'rampant', it's simply evident when it happens. It's not like both parties don't have people monitoring elections.

We had a commission appointed specifically to investigate this by the POTUS, a promoter of this stupid conspiracy, that was disbanded when nothing of note was found.

I'm all for oversight, so I'm glad he did that and dispelled any myths.

Just in general, absence of evidence doesn't equate to evidence of absence. It doesn't mean anything is working other than creating the illusion of "working" because detection ability is limited. The same is true for the virus. It's interesting how people freak when more testing started and numbers of infected increased. Detection increased, infection didn't rely on detection. I need to make that into a bumper sticker "Infection Doesn't Wait for Detection". Dibs here™

[ElNono]

Just in general, absence of evidence doesn't equate to evidence of absence. It doesn't mean anything is working other than creating the illusion of "working" because detection ability is limited. The same is true for the virus. It's interesting how people freak when more testing started and numbers of infected increased. Detection increased, infection didn't rely on detection. I need to make that into a bumper sticker "Infection Doesn't Wait for Detection". Dibs here™

There's no absence of evidence. The system is extremely transparent, which is why these things go indeed largely detected. You get results, which you can match against the overall county political registration (first warning something might be fishy), the party can request a recount and scrutinize each vote.

Furthermore, the system is distributed, so any kind of 'rampant' fraud would require this happening a multitude of times in different counties (raising the alarm even further).

As Mr D'Souza and this fella, among others, found out, turns out that vote fraud is really hard to do, because it's easily detectable. That's by design.

[DMC]

There's no absence of evidence. The system is extremely transparent, which is why these things go indeed largely detected. You get results, which you can match against the overall county political registration (first warning something might be fishy), the party can request a recount and scrutinize each vote.

Furthermore, the system is distributed, so any kind of 'rampant' fraud would require this happening a multitude of times in different counties (raising the alarm even further).

As Mr D'Souza and this fella, among others, found out, turns out that vote fraud is really hard to do, because it's easily detectable. That's by design.

"Local officials in Colorado acknowledged "very serious" voter fraud after learning of votes cast in multiple elections under the named of recently-deceased residents.

A local media outlet uncovered the fraud by comparing voting history databases in the state with federal government death records. "Somebody was able to cast a vote that was not theirs to cast," El Paso County Clerk and Recorder Chuck Broerman told CBS4 while discussing what he called a "very serious" pattern of people mailing in ballots on behalf of the dead."

So back up one step to registrations.

Finding out after the fact through media investigations isn't my idea of a transparent system.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dead-people-voting-in-colorado

This was in 2016.

You feel comfortable that it's being watched closely but like I said, absence of evidence helps create the illusion that it's not happening. I just think your criteria for saying it's working well is flawed - absence of evidence to the contrary instead of what most systems use to know they are working - input vs output. There's just no way to tell in voting nationally. It probably isn't enough to affect the outcome that much, but even that is a guess.

And as far as border crossings go, the BP has encountered 206K in just about 8 months (2020 FY). I'd say that's a few, and we don't say it's working well BECAUSE we see them in cities undetected by the BP. If we didn't see them in cities, we could just as easily say the system is working well. Fraudulent votes don't make themselves apparent, especially since media folks have to dig though records to uncover it.

[pgardn]

But not ballot harvesting.
Hypocrisy yet again.

https://www.npr.org/2019/07/30/746800630/north-carolina-gop-operative-faces-new-felony-charges-that-allege-ballot-fraud

[Will Hunting]

jooz no surprise tbh
Le happy merchant tbh imo fwiw

[ElNono]

"Local officials in Colorado acknowledged "very serious" voter fraud after learning of votes cast in multiple elections under the named of recently-deceased residents.

A local media outlet uncovered the fraud by comparing voting history databases in the state with federal government death records. "Somebody was able to cast a vote that was not theirs to cast," El Paso County Clerk and Recorder Chuck Broerman told CBS4 while discussing what he called a "very serious" pattern of people mailing in ballots on behalf of the dead."

So back up one step to registrations.

Finding out after the fact through media investigations isn't my idea of a transparent system.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dead-people-voting-in-colorado

This was in 2016.

You feel comfortable that it's being watched closely but like I said, absence of evidence helps create the illusion that it's not happening. I just think your criteria for saying it's working well is flawed - absence of evidence to the contrary instead of what most systems use to know they are working - input vs output. There's just no way to tell in voting nationally. It probably isn't enough to affect the outcome that much, but even that is a guess.

And as far as border crossings go, the BP has encountered 206K in just about 8 months (2020 FY). I'd say that's a few, and we don't say it's working well BECAUSE we see them in cities undetected by the BP. If we didn't see them in cities, we could just as easily say the system is working well. Fraudulent votes don't make themselves apparent, especially since media folks have to dig though records to uncover it.

It's really not complicated, tbh... there's not only plenty of studies (some linked from the story you posted above, from this article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnwasik/2012/11/06/voter-fraud-a-massive-anti-democratic-deception/#748ad9781d9a) that show voter fraud is simply a non-issue at the current scale, and that's heavily policed and prosecuted, isolated cases notwithstanding, but also the fact that the guise of fraud is constantly used to disenfranchise valid, legitimate voters. Clearly voter ID (something I'm actually not against), will simply not preclude fraud like that from happening (not the Colorado case, not the OP case).

Should our officials be vigilant? Sure. But it's not like they're not right now, and there's simply no evidence to the contrary. And frankly, most actual polls do match what the output ends up being, so again, there's no absence of evidence here, it's a closely watched and fairly transparent process, with even the possibility to challenge results in the areas where they might be any doubts. Conversely, the absence of evidence is on the side that claims voter fraud is widespread, which is really going with a 'hunch' and a 'gut feeling', but not actually backed up by data. The only claim that could be made is that there's no interest in policing or obtaining such data, and that's factually not true, as described in this and previous posts. Like I said, even the POTUS, the voter fraud diva in charge couldn't find anything after establishing a commission specifically for it.

Now, nobody is arguing there's zero instances. Clearly if you consistently get people caught doing it, then there's people trying. The question is if it's widespread enough to turn an election around, and the answer is, at this time, clearly no (that applies similarly to the Russian influence too, BTW).

As far as the BP, there's simply no barometer because we don't know where the ranges are. It's a completely different scenario.

Here we have a list of registered voters (so we have a range of voters), we know what their political leanings are (we have a range of declared political affiliation), we infer who they're likely going to vote for (polls). In comparisons, border crossing are completely opaque. The only metric we use is year-to-year captures, because it's the only thing that makes sense, and yet, it really doesn't even come close to paint a complete picture.