Voter Fraud Database Tops 1,000 Proven Cases

Despite the continuous denials, vote and voter fraud is real.

The Heritage Foundation keeps pretty good track of the real cases.

And of course, there's probably 1000's more cases that never get exposed.

Everything from soup to nuts.

1,071 ..PROVEN INSTANCES OF VOTER FRAUD
938 ....CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS
43 .....CIVIL PENALTIES
74 .....DIVERSION PROGRAMS
8 ......JUDICIAL FINDINGS
8 ......OFFICIAL FINDINGS

Voter Fraud Database Tops 1,000 Proven Cases

As the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity convenes its first meeting on Wednesday, the issue of voter fraud in American elections has become even more contentious and hyperbolic.

One of the left’s main arguments against reform is that voter fraud simply does not occur. How liberals arrive at this conclusion, we cannot say.

Time and again, studies and analyses point to one incontrovertible conclusion: that voter fraud is a real and pressing issue that deserves serious solutions, and The Heritage Foundation has the evidence to prove it.

a reply to: xuenchen

I am of the opinion that there only need be one instance. After that ... can't abide any stays of illegal 'grints. Get busy. Kick 'em out. #MAGA

a reply to: xuenchen


Every fraudulent vote cast, cancels out an actual citizens vote.

a reply to: seeker1963

Yeah but we cant hurt the feelings of those illegal immigrants and other vote criminals whom the lib's say expect and deserve all of the same rights as natural born citizens of every caliber.

a reply to: xuenchen

How Liberals arrive at this conclusion, we cannot say.

LOL.....just like all the other conclusions they arrive at when faced with overwhelming evidence against their position.
They lie some more about it.

"Thousands" of proven voter fraud cases are nowhere near the "millions" Trump thought voted for Hillary illegally. Of course there are going to be some cases of voter fraud. It is simply a fact of the numbers. How much fraud there is determines how much of an issue it is.

In addition to higher numbers, I would need to see proof that fraudulent voters are more likely to vote Democrat than Republican before I would be willing to consider that fraudulent votes are the reason Democrats win (which I don't think is anywhere near the case).

As for solving the problem, what do people here on ATS recommend?

a reply to: darkbake

Required ID's to vote. Just like everything else. Oh but that's "racist". Liberals thinks minorities are too stupid to know how to get ID (but are smart enough to vote Democrat apparently).

originally posted by: darkbake

As for solving the problem, what do people here on ATS recommend?

Voter ID.

Two of the three examples cited were US citizens and the other was a guy from the Netherlands that overstayed a work Visa in 1967.

Not only that but not all of the examples given were even in years of Presidential Elections.

That doesn't exactly fit the narrative being pushed.

A little misleading though, the 1,000+ cases date back to 1982. Hundreds of millions of votes cast in the last 35 years and roughly 1,000 cases of voter fraud?

Maybe if we had 1,000 cases in 2016 alone I might be more concerned. This is hardly proof of anything.

a reply to: darkbake

Common sense tells me Voter ID's could help reduce voter fraud manipulation pretty significantly. They should also check people who voted more then once and of course the dead voters. I remember a voter fraud case where even dead pets voted for a candidate. Btw the million illegal voters claim could still turn out to be true because many states still refuse to cooperate with the investigation. I wouldn't mind humilating Hillary once more and crushing the popular vote lie altogether.

The problem is that if you are aren't actively looking for the fraud, you can't know if it exist or not. At a minimum, we should be required to show ID to vote.

One can only surmise that Democrats are against this because they know they have a lot of voters who shouldn't be voting.

a reply to: xuenchen

How about election fraud and gerrymandering? How about we look into that and see what that reveals?

originally posted by: PistolPete
Two of the three examples cited were US citizens and the other was a guy from the Netherlands that overstayed a work Visa in 1967.

Not only that but not all of the examples given were even in years of Presidential Elections.

That doesn't exactly fit the narrative being pushed.

Not only that, but we also have learned that the method this committee is using produces a vast number of false positives. Both Dems and Reps are refusing to play along with this nonsense because it appears to be inconsistent.

Let's also not forget that the Heritage Foundation are the geniuses that gave us Obamacare.

a reply to: xuenchen

Didn't read the link, but nothing in OP indicates it's illegals. The voting dead, registering in multiple localities, etc. are tried and true tactics. It's how JFK took Illinois after all.

a reply to: xuenchen

This OP title might be a bit misleading. I just read through the study, not all of it in detail, but enough to see what they are reporting.

The study's definition of voter fraud is not actual votes cast. Additionally, the study covers multiple years, going back to at least 2013.

Some of what they count is pretty terrible however, but it is not really well documented for dates, and most of what they do document is registration fraud, not actual voting.

I would read the actual study before coming to any conclusions.

It seems to me that there is some small smoke here, and a much smaller fire.

a reply to: Kettu

That's the design top to bottom of the RNC+MSM+DNC in every election and all in between. The general design is that they squirm around together to ensure no other parties or outsiders within the parties ever have a chance. They collude at this game which has many tactics and techniques. For the most comprehensive guide I know about see here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And voters ID's is one of those angles. Which could with the stroke of a few pens and some clicking around on some keyboards could wrap up overnight.

Oh but you'd rather not deal with this one aspect here. Okay, let's deal with the rest shall we (any thoughts about that please do add to the thread!).

originally posted by: Edumakated
The problem is that if you are aren't actively looking for the fraud, you can't know if it exist or not.

So, given the tone of your statement, one has to surmise that you, in contrast, DO actively look for the fraud. How precisely do you do that? Do you question everyone you run across on the street asking for applicable ID and how many times and in what way they voted? Tell us your secret and let us know how you actively look for the fraud so the rest of us can figure it out. OTHERWISE, the Governmental body responsible for tallying voter fraud has only proven one case in the 2016 election cycle of actual voter fraud....and until you can enlighten us with your methodology and THUS disprove the body responsible (the watchdogs), looks like the "actively looking" part is going to have to go to the professionals who deal with it.

One can only surmise that Democrats are against this because they know they have a lot of voters who shouldn't be voting.

I live in NJ, arguably the most democratic leaning state in the union, of which I refuse to be a part of, yet EVERYONE I know (and almost those are democrats) are not against the idea of Voter ID .... so, if you would, like your magic for actively looking, could you be more precise on where your "Democrats are against this" derivation stems from so I know who to look out for in the future?

a reply to: alphabetaone


Every time voter ID comes up the Democrats scream it Racist.


I have a Progressive governor, and this last vote was the first time I didn't need to show my ID to vote. All I needed to do was have filled out a voter registration form and DONE. Sorry, but we have already seen the likes of ACORN and how they processed Voter ID's and if you think they have disappeared, I have some really awesome swamp land to sell you. You can fill out voter ID's almost anywhere during elections, and it's up to the integrity of those pimping for you vote as to whether or not they even ask for it.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Edumakated
The problem is that if you are aren't actively looking for the fraud, you can't know if it exist or not.

So, given the tone of your statement, one has to surmise that you, in contrast, DO actively look for the fraud. How precisely do you do that? Do you question everyone you run across on the street asking for applicable ID and how many times and in what way they voted? Tell us your secret and let us know how you actively look for the fraud so the rest of us can figure it out. OTHERWISE, the Governmental body responsible for tallying voter fraud has only proven one case in the 2016 election cycle of actual voter fraud....and until you can enlighten us with your methodology and THUS disprove the body responsible (the watchdogs), looks like the "actively looking" part is going to have to go to the professionals who deal with it.

One can only surmise that Democrats are against this because they know they have a lot of voters who shouldn't be voting.

I live in NJ, arguably the most democratic leaning state in the union, of which I refuse to be a part of, yet EVERYONE I know (and almost those are democrats) are not against the idea of Voter ID .... so, if you would, like your magic for actively looking, could you be more precise on where your "Democrats are against this" derivation stems from so I know who to look out for in the future?

You do something as simple as requiring state issued ID. It really isn't that difficult. Vast majority of Democrats are probably ok with voter ID, but the Democrat leadership is not. Do you ever wonder why there is this disconnect? Maybe they know something you don't?