It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

There is Absolutely No Evidence of Widespread Voter Fraud

page: 3
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 09:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Gryphon66


Require state bmv printed photo IDs would be a good start.


IDs can be faked.

Next?




posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


Ok.
I guess since someone can always find a way to cheat we shouldn't bother trying to stop it.
Good logic.
while we are at it lets get rid of background checks for guns.
I'm sure I can think of some more problems that are not widespread but people always want to clamp down on.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Gryphon66


Ok.
I guess since someone can always find a way to cheat we shouldn't bother trying to stop it.
Good logic.
while we are at it lets get rid of background checks for guns.
I'm sure I can think of some more problems that are not widespread but people always want to clamp down on.


I haven't said anything of the sort.

You stated that "even one" occurance of voter fraud was too much. I wondered what you wanted to change to insure that exacting level of control. I see you don't have an answer, fair enough.

Ah, background checks for guns. Red herring.

Perhaps a National ID would solve all these issues. Are you in favor of a Federally-issued ID for all purposes?

You seem to be the one wanting to "clamp down" on all this alleged voter fraud, for the record, you just don't have any reasonable suggestion to insure 100% credibility nationwide.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Nucleardoom

LOL,you summed it up so eloquently,who could blame him I wouldn't trust Obama any further then I could throw him,and I'm awaiting shoulder surgery



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

So just because something is not instantly a 100% foolproof solution, you shouldn't even try, right? Why do you keep shooting down any and all ides to stop voter fraud? Perhaps because, as we've all seen lately, the Democrats are the ones who have gained from it?



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 10:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: pavil
a reply to: GodEmperor

Come election day my friend trounces his opponent at each precinct but he doesn't look happy. I ask him why and he tells me he is going to lose. I said how, you are doing so good. Absentee ballots he says, just watch what happens with them. There were so many absentee ballots and they skewed 75/25 to his opponent. He ended up loosing, even though he won the walk up election part.

Early voting and absentee voting are where the attention should be on preventing fraud. Notice how both the media and political parties don't even mention it. That's where the abuse of the system is.


I agree. I wish more people were paying attention to absentee voting and the opportunities for voter-fraud.

Let's take Florida, for example. It's a huge swing state and Bush won the 2000 election thanks to only 537 votes. So voter-fraud could actually turn an election in Florida.

I don't know how many people have paid attention to the very recent election case, in Florida, concerning absentee ballots and mis-matched signatures, but a very interesting preliminary injunction was issued this past week.

To summarize what happened...

In 2012, 23,000 absentee votes were tossed because election workers decided the voter-signatures on them did not match what was on file on their voter-registration cards.

That is how Florida has been handling mis-matched signatures -- they toss them. Not ideal.

However, absentee ballots that lack a signature, altogether, are given an opportunity to be corrected. The voter is notified by mail that their ballot lacks a signature and the SOS office provides a non-certified affidavit that can be signed and turned in with a copy of a picture ID...or a number of other items that simply show the voter's name and address.

The Plaintiff in the case argued that mis-matched signature ballots should be allowed to be corrected, too.

The judge agreed and ordered that election officials must now allow mail-in voters to correct mis-matched signatures.

How?

By providing yet another mismatched signature on a non-certified affidavit *ahem* and the minimum ID they would have to provide...

...Something that shows their name and current residence address: current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or government document.


Also, anyone needing to correct a mismatched signature can have someone else deliver their affidavit and copy of ID...which, again, could simply be a "government document" showing their name & address.

The judge was so very careful to order that mismatched signatures be cured in EXACTLY the same way missing signatures are handled:


"(2) that in light of this Court’s order they are required to allow mismatched-signature ballots to be cured in precisely the same fashion as currently provided for nonsignature ballots."


So....signatures on mail-in ballots no longer have to match what's on file, in Florida. Ever. They just need to match a second mis-matched signature.

I think that's crazy.

Also from the injunction:


"There is simply no evidence that these mismatched-signature ballots were submitted fraudulently. Rather, the record shows that innocent factors—such as body position, writing surface, and noise—affect the accuracy of one’s signature."


So why not require the voter come in and re-sign their name on a smooth surface, standing up, with the same 'noise' as when they signed their voter registration cards?

PDF to Preliminary Injunction and draft affidavit

***
I'll leave you with this:


"...many Florida voters choose to vote by mail. And that option has become increasingly popular in recent years—six percent more voters cast vote-by-mail ballots in the 2012 General Election than the 2008 General Election."

Link

Voter fraud may not be significant in some states, but in others, it could turn the entire election. By the way, absentee voting is reportedly looking very good for Hillary, in Florida. Link



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Voter ID has a lot to do with election fraud. When voters do not have to identify themselves before voting they can, and do, vote repeatedly. Often at the same polling place.

There is also software that can "rig" any electronic election. It will flip votes to a 51/49 win for whoever pays for the desired outcome.

And lets not for get the Chicago favorite - dead people. They vote in every single election and everyone knows it but you can't stop it for some reason. Probably because it is the incumbent party that always wins (go figure)...and they would be the ones who could do something about it. Of course they won't, unless the dead people suddenly start voting republican. Then I bet they could solve the problem real quick.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: DAVID64
a reply to: Gryphon66

So just because something is not instantly a 100% foolproof solution, you shouldn't even try, right? Why do you keep shooting down any and all ides to stop voter fraud? Perhaps because, as we've all seen lately, the Democrats are the ones who have gained from it?


I haven't said anything of the sort. I haven't shot down any ideas, in fact, I've noted on several occasions that I'm in favor of ID for voting.

Perhaps you're here promoting an agenda yourself and want to muddy the water with outright lies?

/shrug



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 10:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: searcherfortruth
a reply to: GodEmperor

Why would there be a need for voter fraud when the elections themselves are rigged, redundancy at it's finest.



Double tap.





posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: Gryphon66

Voter ID has a lot to do with election fraud. When voters do not have to identify themselves before voting they can, and do, vote repeatedly. Often at the same polling place.

There is also software that can "rig" any electronic election. It will flip votes to a 51/49 win for whoever pays for the desired outcome.

And lets not for get the Chicago favorite - dead people. They vote in every single election and everyone knows it but you can't stop it for some reason. Probably because it is the incumbent party that always wins (go figure)...and they would be the ones who could do something about it. Of course they won't, unless the dead people suddenly start voting republican. Then I bet they could solve the problem real quick.


Like many you apparently don't understand the difference between election fraud and voter fraud.

First of all, I don't know of any location anywhere in this country that doesn't require some form of identification and/or registration before voting. Perhaps you'll be good enough to provide a legitimate example of your claim?

If poll workers allow people to vote multiple times, that's election fraud. An ID wouldn't make a difference.

Show us this software that can "rig" elections.

Dead people do indeed show up on voter rolls. The incidence of these dead people's names being used to vote in the last 50 years is insignificant. This is an old and tired (and debunked) assertion of right-wingers. Comparisons between voter rolls and Social Security death lists have been shown to be rife with mistakes, because, guess what, sometimes two people have the same name.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 10:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: tribal

So you were just chiming in with a generic statement on the dishonesty of your family?

Okay.

It's common. It's not just HIS/HER family, it's a generalization, and a valid one at that. I see though, you are going your typical route of discrediting it because you don't see it.

It's not even a hidden thing among the hispanic immigrant community anymore, they will tell you first hand if they like you.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

I asked a question of the member you're referring to; they answered.

I'm not discrediting anyone. They made a statement, I asked a question, they made another statement, and so did I.

Logical path of communication; try it sometime.

You made the same claim though ... care to offer your proof?



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



care to offer your proof?

I couldn't ever meet your standards of proof. I could get a thousand Mexicans on tape admitting it and you would say it's subjective.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Gryphon66



care to offer your proof?

I couldn't ever meet your standards of proof. I could get a thousand Mexicans on tape admitting it and you would say it's subjective.


Any proof will do.

Don't give up so easily; makes you look like you're just posting an unsupported opinion as fact.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: CaDreamer

I understand that it is not in good taste for a party to lie and manipulate their supporters into believing the party candidates are democratically chosen. The parties have every constitutional right to do this, it's not illegal to lie to people, the responsibility falls on the individual to recognize those falsehoods and not blindly support a party.

It's all about appearances, a little awareness will go a long way.
A very good point, well stated!



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Gryphon66

Fake IDs Are Common Among Illegal Immigrants
One hour and $260 can get you phony green card, soc. security and license
Homeland Security accepts fake ID

Once they have an ID they vote, with each one.


So, nothing on actual voter fraud from Hispanics? I'm sorry, wasn't that your assertion above?

How about anecdotal evidence? Do you personally know any undocumented people who would RISK discovery to vote in an election? Have you ever known anyone who did that?

As to your overall point, if IDs are as easily come by as that, there's no purpose for a Voter ID is there?



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




How about anecdotal evidence? Do you personally know any undocumented people who would RISK discovery to vote in an election? Have you ever known anyone who did that?

Yes. Once they buy identification they are no longer undocumented.



As to your overall point, if IDs are as easily come by as that, there's no purpose for a Voter ID is there?

You get carded for beer, smokes, and driving. ID should definitely be required for voting, some places it isn't.



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

This is key because Florida has the 3rd most number of electoral votes up for grabs and is one of several states that could conceivably go either way.



And that, along with what you present in your post, gives the notion of voter fraud much more weight. I'm sure people recall the mess that took place surrounding those hanging chads; if not get yourself up to speed.

Texas will go Trump, California and NY will go Hillary, but Florida, and a few other states are genuinely up for grabs.

The other problem lies in the electronic voting machines and the software resident within them.


The rigging works by forcing the computers to calculate the vote percentages skewed to a specific margin of error. The bigger the election, the smaller the margin has to appear because exit polls will reveal fraud if the vote is off by even 2%. With primaries, the rigging is easier because information is divided and largely hidden (public does not focus on it)

The New York polls, for example, were skewed in favor of HRC by upwards of 20%. The National polls will not be skewed as such, but they will be skewed. T can win in a landslide, so that the actual vote exceeds the attempted skew.
[additional comment by FBIanon:] 2% discrepancy between actual vote and exit polls is fraud


http:///vvG9PSJN

And I recall something about raw exit polling data not being made available?

So we have to take the word of companies such as Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research a company I mentioned in IAMTAT's Seth Rich thread here.

This Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research:


In a Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research poll of 800 likely voters, Clinton leads Trump, 45 perent to 40 percent, with Johnson at 6 percent. Stein wasn’t polled, but 2 percent said they favored an unnamed “other” candidate. That survey, which has an error-margin of 4.1 percentage points, was conducted for the Democrat-aligned Project New America political committee, which is funded by unions and environmentalists.


Politicio

The same "gqrr.com (267 results, viewing 1 to 50)" can be found in the Podesta Emails being involved in discussing oversampling in polls to achieve specific results.

Pay attention to who all is looped in on this conversation.

Talk about collusion!



posted on Oct, 23 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

So, to be clear, you are saying that you know people, personally that have committed voter fraud?

Have you turned them in?

ID should be required for voting, and everyone should be verified and provided with one.

I'm in favor of a National ID card with RFID chip. Are you?




top topics



 
28
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join