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.

 

Trump pledges "major investigation into voter fraud"

page: 19
68
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye





Then under the HAVV, there is no alternative method to verify voters who do not provide either number -- that's left to the states and I have yet to find one that does anything beyond verifying DL#s and SS#s.

That's the biggest loophole, IMO.



Election officials at the voting stations that wave anyone on through, or falsify the record with bogus information, or does anything to perpetuate impropriety because of their own personal political bias, should be prosecuted and punished to the fullest extent of the law.

We have to stop the lawlessness.

If anybody is getting paid off by political operatives, gang bangers, drug traffickers, human traffickers, or any one else, they need to go to prison.

It all needs to be investigated started with the biggest sanctuary-city state in the country whose own governor is in-your-face with his "lawless" rhetoric, imo.




posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

Well some would say, "Thank god for the HAVV, look how good the system is at catching voter registration fraud."

But many people don't realize that you do not even need to provide a SS# and/or DL# to register to vote. It's frauds who do that who aren't caught through the HAVV.


edit on 25-1-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:06 PM
link   
Gotta go.

Catch up later.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:07 PM
link   
weren't some of the voting machine anomalies, those found to have inconsistent tallies, inconsistent in a prohillary manner?

Records: Too many votes in 37% of Detroit’s precincts[more votes than voters in favor of hillary]

If similar happened in other states, it might explain hillary's lack of commitment towards the recount efforts.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Annee

I see it as protecting the weight of the votes cast by millions of eligible voters. Watering down votes with illegal votes is disenfranchisement, too.

People who cast fraudulent votes are worse than witches and deserve to be sniffed out.


I think its a waste of time and money - - because I don't think the numbers are there.

Maybe work to improve the system, but not waste time on an election that's over.


Well, through the HAVV we can see just how many bunk, bogus, or just plain wrong voter registrations (including the deceased), in California, are caught via SS# cross-checking:

Link

The number of non-matches are soooo unbelievably high. There are TEN TIMES as many non-matches as there are matches!!

So, I say it's probably a really good idea that we take a look at the voter registrations of people who didn't even provide a SS# or DL# for crosschecking.



Ummm.....

That graph represents number of people in those areas registered with HAVA

NOT the number of "bad" voters found......

Im not sure how you can come to that conclusion, it even says so right on that website you linked

My first clue was, I now live in Idaho and theres no way that 1/3 of our WHOLE population was illegal voters
edit on 1/25/2017 by ManBehindTheMask because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Annee

I see it as protecting the weight of the votes cast by millions of eligible voters. Watering down votes with illegal votes is disenfranchisement, too.

People who cast fraudulent votes are worse than witches and deserve to be sniffed out.


I think its a waste of time and money - - because I don't think the numbers are there.

Maybe work to improve the system, but not waste time on an election that's over.


It's not about wasting time or $ on an election that is over. It is about fixing a system that has been broken for years. It's about the future elections.

I watched Trump rallies with 20,000 and Clinton rallies that didn't fill a high school gymnasium floor. Yet, I knew Trump needed a miracle because of widespread voter fraud that has been going on for years.




posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Annee

I see it as protecting the weight of the votes cast by millions of eligible voters. Watering down votes with illegal votes is disenfranchisement, too.

People who cast fraudulent votes are worse than witches and deserve to be sniffed out.


I think its a waste of time and money - - because I don't think the numbers are there.

Maybe work to improve the system, but not waste time on an election that's over.


Well, through the HAVV we can see just how many bunk, bogus, or just plain wrong voter registrations, in California, are caught via SS cross-checking:

Link

The number of non-matches are soooo unbelievably high. There are TEN TIMES as many non-matches as there are matches!!

So, I say it's probably a really good idea that we take a look at the voter registrations of people who didn't even provide a SS# or DL# for crosschecking.


MME, is this saying that 5.4m people sent by the State of California for verification (due to having no drivers licence during voter registration) could not be found???


It's saying that 5.4 million registrations came back returned because the SS# they offered was not a match for anyone having their name and date of birth OR the person was deceased.

Yep.

Incredible, eh?

California's stats are by far one of the worst.


Good God!
This in itself warrants an investigation!

In terms of an audit, presumably this data can be used to check actual votes in the election to find out if any of those 5.4m appear? Or would these returns ensure no vote could be made?


The number of non-matches would not be registered to vote. They'd be rejected.

But isn't that number so alarming? If that many get kicked back through the HAVV, how many slip through because the registrant didn't even offer a SS# or DL# for verification? It's not like there are any methods in place to catch frauds who do that. Based on the HAVV numbers, you have to wonder if only one out of ten such registrations are valid.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Profusion


I think there's a fine line between "major investigation into voter fraud" and "major movement of voter intimidation."



In the Trump Administration that line does note exist at all..

It is simply cover for how they can pass federal laws making it harder for Brown Americans to vote.

NOT to say the odd qwack isn't caught once in a while!
Voter fraud suspect arrested in Des Moines


A Des Moines woman has been arrested on suspicion of voting twice this month in the general election, police and court records show.

Terri Lynn Rote, 55, was booked into the Polk County Jail about 3:40 p.m. Thursday on a first-degree election misconduct charge, which is a Class D felony.

Rote, a registered Republican,

It's the first time in 12 years that Polk County Auditor Jamie Fitzgerald can remember ever having to report potential voter fraud, he said Thursday morning.

www.desmoinesregister.com...


Trump Supporter Voted Twice in Iowa Because “Polls Are Rigged”

www.slate.com...

A Texas man arrested on suspicion of voting fraud said he worked for Trump and was testing the system
www.latimes.com...


BUT HELL...They were just following orders!
Trump tells supporters to vote twice to fight voter fraud
www.star-telegram.com...
edit on 25-1-2017 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: sad_eyed_lady

I see it as protecting the weight of the votes cast by millions of eligible voters. Watering down votes with illegal votes is disenfranchisement, too.


It's actually about Trump's bruised ego that he didn't get the popular vote.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: Konduit
There's a reason why sanctuary city states push back so hard against voter ID laws... and most of them happen to be controlled by Democrats.



Should we bring up Diebold voting machines?

Voter fraud is not exclusive to one party.


Please do, because now we have a POTUS that actually cares about investigating it.

But I only see one party using immigration as a voting block to stay in power. There should be a 5 year wait period before someone that gets their citizenship can vote, but the Dems definitely won't go for that.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

What?



What does this data represent?

This data represents the results of the 4-digit match performed using our HAVV system. We operate HAVV as required by HAVA.



What do these terms mean?

The following list describes the types of data in the HAVV dataset.

Total Transactions: The total number of verification requests made during the time period.

Unprocessed Transactions: The total number of verification requests that could not be processed because the data sent to us was invalid, (e.g., missing, not formatted correctly).

Total Matches: The total number of verification requests where there is at least one match in our records on the name, last four digits of the SSN and date of birth.

Total Non Matches: The total number of verification requests where there is no match in our records on the name, last four digits of the SSN or date of birth.

Multiple Matches Found – At least one alive and at least one deceased: The total number of verification requests where there are multiple matches on name, date of birth, and the last four digits of the SSN, and at least one of the number holders is alive and at least one of the number holders is deceased.

Single Match Found – Alive: The total number of verification requests where there is only one match in our records on name, last four digits of the SSN and date of birth, and the number holder is alive.

Single Match Found – Deceased: The total number of verification requests where there is only one match in our records on name, date of birth, and last four digits of the SSN, and the number holder is deceased.

Multiple Matches Found – All Alive: The total number of verification requests where there are multiple matches on name, date of birth, and last four digits of the SSN, and each match indicates the number holder is alive.

Multiple Match Found – All Deceased: The total number of verification requests where there are multiple matches on name, date of birth, and the last four digits of the SSN, and each match indicates the number holder is deceased.

Link


You are obviously confused.


edit on 25-1-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Profusion


I think there's a fine line between "major investigation into voter fraud" and "major movement of voter intimidation."



In the Trump Administration that line does note exist at all..

It is simply cover for how they can pass federal laws making it harder for Brown Americans to vote.




Yep thats it. In your interpretation, how many Brown people would be kept from voting by having to provide an ID?

And why are Brown people more likely to not be able to get an ID?



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: sad_eyed_lady

I see it as protecting the weight of the votes cast by millions of eligible voters. Watering down votes with illegal votes is disenfranchisement, too.


It's actually about Trump's bruised ego that he didn't get the popular vote.


Psst...that sounds too "truthy" to be understood.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: UKTruth

Well some would say, "Thank god for the HAVV, look how good the system is at catching voter registration fraud."

But many people don't realize that you do not even need to provide a SS# and/or DL# to register to vote. It's frauds who do that who aren't caught through the HAVV.



I am not familiar with this, so go slow


So If one has a DL# and wants to register as a new voter they are checked by HAVA.
Info drivers licence, then it's HAVV that is used to check.

What I am not clear on is what happens to those that don;t match?



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: UKTruth

Well some would say, "Thank god for the HAVV, look how good the system is at catching voter registration fraud."

But many people don't realize that you do not even need to provide a SS# and/or DL# to register to vote. It's frauds who do that who aren't caught through the HAVV.



I am not familiar with this, so go slow


So If one has a DL# and wants to register as a new voter they are checked by HAVA.
Info drivers licence, then it's HAVV that is used to check.

What I am not clear on is what happens to those that don;t match?


The states cross check DL#s if that's what's offered.

If the person offers their SS# (last four digits) it is crosschecked via the HAVV.

Any non-matches would be rejected and not registered.

BUT, it does give an inkling as to how many attempted registrations are rejected due to bad info. The problem is, the HAVA mandates that people who don't offer a SS# or DL# have to be registered. And there is literally no method in place to verify such registrants.

If one out of ten is rejected via the HAVV, how many should be rejected that can't even be cross-checked?



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
My first clue was, I now live in Idaho and theres no way that 1/3 of our WHOLE population was illegal voters


And, BTW, that number means 1/3 of people who attempted to register to vote in Idaho were REJECTED because the SS# they offered could not be verified.



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Profusion


I think there's a fine line between "major investigation into voter fraud" and "major movement of voter intimidation."



In the Trump Administration that line does note exist at all..

It is simply cover for how they can pass federal laws making it harder for Brown Americans to vote.




Yep thats it. In your interpretation, how many Brown people would be kept from voting by having to provide an ID?

And why are Brown people more likely to not be able to get an ID?


It's the same format that was tried in Illinois before the courts struck it down...then executed upon with some success in Wisconsin and other places..

Require specific voter IDs for those that don't have DLs..Issued only by select DMV offices..that only issue them during work hours..(both under the cover of saving money) and at locations placed 20 to 50 miles away from urban locations with democrat voting bases.

So a voter that might live in the city and not own a car or have a DL..is forced to take a day off work and take a taxi 20 to 30 miles away to wait in line to get a voter ID. Where otherwise their voter registration card and current utility bill or other documentation would suffice.

In Texas?


For example, residents can vote with their concealed-carry handgun licenses but not their state-issued student university IDs.




Last week, during the federal trial on Wisconsin’s voter-ID law, a former Republican staffer testified that GOP senators were “giddy” about the idea that the state’s 2011 voter-ID law might keep Democrats, particularly minorities in Milwaukee, from voting and help them win at the polls. “They were politically frothing at the mouth,” said the aide, Todd Allbaugh.

www.washingtonpost.com... 474ec-20f0-11e6-8690-f14ca9de2972_story.html?utm_term=.90ed1fc4923d



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: sad_eyed_lady

I see it as protecting the weight of the votes cast by millions of eligible voters. Watering down votes with illegal votes is disenfranchisement, too.


It's actually about Trump's bruised ego that he didn't get the popular vote.


He got it in virtually all states combined if we exclude california. California alone swong the popular vote for hillary if I'm not mistaken. Considering that Trump's win was in large part the result of getting many democrat votes all over, I do believe this needs to be checked.

In almost all places Hillary got less numbers than Obama, iirc. But in california she got substantially more than Obama.
edit on 25-1-2017 by Xenogears because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

The only thing that bothers me about a possible investigation is that it will be conducted in a partisan manner by a pre-stacked committee. The last thing the United States needs right now is a report by a bunch of political hacks vilifying a huge segment of the population (Republican or Democrat).

If the White House hires the Battelle Memorial Institute or Pew, I can't see how this would be a bad thing. There have been enough reports over the last decade to make me more than a little uneasy about the integrity of our voting process.

* A History of Presidential Candidates and Rigged Elections
* Was the 2004 Election Stolen (Rolling Stone)
* Statistical detection of systematic election irregularities
* Clinton Eugene Curtis deposition regarding Tom Feeney (Speaker of the House of Florida)
* NSA analyst Michael Duniho's research into voting anomalies
* How to Hack an Election (Bloomberg)
* Members of Congress Call for End to Mass Voter Suppression and Insecure Elections
* Security Expert Jailed For Reporting Vulnerabilities In Lee County, FL Elections
* Sa nders Campaign Says It Was Informed By Iowa Dem. Party That Results From 90 Precincts Are Missing
* Democracy Lost: A Report on the Fatally Flawed 2016 Democratic Primaries
* Will the US elections be hacked? It's doubtful, but machines could be 'rigged'
* Julian Assange: WikiLeaks will show US intelligence interfering in European elections
* Donald Trump claims the election might be 'rigged.'
* Russian hackers targeted Arizona election system
* Vote rigging: How to spot the tell-tale signs
* Statistical Evidence Suggests Russia's Ruling Party Cheated Its Way to Supermajority
* Russian election rigged? Putin returned but CCTV appears to show corruption
* Some Trump Voters Reporting Ballots Switching To Clinton « CBS Pittsburgh - (example)

Shoring up our voting infrastructure can only be a good thing if done in earnest.

edit on 25-1-2017 by ThingsThatDontMakeSense because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2017 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Exactly




This data represents the results of the 4-digit match performed using our HAVV system. We operate HAVV as required by HAVA.


You posted that data, with California SPECIFICALLY highlighted to say thats how many people illegally voted or were illegally registered......

Thats not what the graph or the data on that shows......



new topics

top topics



 
68
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join