Nuff said...
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Merged The election was stolen/rigged!
- Thread starter 1337m4n
- Start date
-
- Tags
- 2012 election
Nuff said...
Tomtomkent
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2010
- Messages
- 8,607
There does seem to be a conspiracy by conspiracy sites to propogate the idea that there is in fact an electoral conspiracy...
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
Mr. Randi, here's my bold psychic prediction: Whichever side loses the next Presidential election, fringe elements on the left or right, as appropriate, will claim the vote was rigged. I fully expect to collect my check for $1,000,000. 
squealpiggy
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2012
- Messages
- 1,468
8000 votes could decide the election? Obama won the popular vote by a margin of some three million!
Lesbian death squads?
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
But conspiracy theorists already have a pat answer for this: any example of electoral irregularity is merely the "tip of the iceberg" of vast imagined impropriety that somehow must be going on just barely under the surface. In other words, the good old "Where there's a wisp of smoke there must be a raging inferno" argument. We'll see if Robert can come up with a more original excuse. But since he's basically ignoring all the comments to his cherry-picked stolen-election spewage, I imagine he won't have time to think creatively.
The reason the election occurs early in November, but the electoral vote doesn't occur until many weeks hence, is to give all the states time to properly collect, count, re-count if necessary, and finalize their popular votes and thus certify their electors. They are allowed to use simple statistical methods to determine whether some votes need to be counted in order to ascertain the outcome. That's because there's a difference between the ideological warm-fuzzy of "Everyone's vote should count" and the practical value of "Everyone's vote should count so that we can certify the election results in reasonable time." There is no presumption that election-night reports need stand forever.
If the election authority in some state knows of 1 million votes having been cast, and of those votes has reliably counted all but 1,000 of them, and has determined that the margin of victory far exceeds the 1,000 oustanding votes, it may use simple statistics to show that even if every single one of those outstanding votes was cast for the losing cause, it would not change the outcome that the state is bound to certify. Hence the state need not count every single popular vote for U.S. President in order to certify its electors.
Thus at the state level. At precinct, district, or ward levels, accurate vote counts are required. And at the state level, if no statistical surety presents itself, then more rigorous counts are required by law. And for purposes beyond certifying election results, elections boards have secondary statutory responsibilities the require eventually reporting an accurate count. Hence even after the outcomes are certified, the votes will still continue to be counted in order to determine, for example, accurate statistical abstracts for pollsters and campaign representatives.
Since Robert has taken us to task for "playing the race card" in the Birther thread, I'm sure he'll be quite indignant at anyone here playing the sexuality or gender card. Let's just assume he'll propose that the death squads keeping Romney voters at bay are merely "evil Democrats" and may or may not be lesbian females.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
So let me get this straight Robert. You believe that military personel favor Romney ti the tune of 60-70%, which would in theory include top military brass. However these military personel deliberatly implemented a plot to fix the vote for Obama. Right?
But the story is supposed to concern active military who just may have not wanted further Republican leadership which promised to send them to war with Iran.
,,,,,, and McCain is a former service man himself, a person that even the average grunt might relate to more than Romney.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
It's a pretty weak conspiracy that aims to reinforce the President and forgets to give him a majority in Congress. Here are the results in my particular precinct:
Of course, in my district Rush ended up winning, however it's odd that this precinct has opposite party results between President and Congressman, don't you think, if there was a conspiracy?
If anyone wants to prove a fraud on a national scale, they're going to have to explain ALL the discrepancies like this that don't fit into their scheme, aren't they?
On the plus side, it's comforting that at least 8 of my neighbors agree with me on the best Presidential candidate. And I would not find it too odd that Romney pulled close to zero votes in precincts not too far to the east of where I live.
Of course, in my district Rush ended up winning, however it's odd that this precinct has opposite party results between President and Congressman, don't you think, if there was a conspiracy?
If anyone wants to prove a fraud on a national scale, they're going to have to explain ALL the discrepancies like this that don't fit into their scheme, aren't they?
On the plus side, it's comforting that at least 8 of my neighbors agree with me on the best Presidential candidate. And I would not find it too odd that Romney pulled close to zero votes in precincts not too far to the east of where I live.
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
I understood that the 8000 votes referred to were those that would be attributed to St. Lucie County, not the total USA popular vote.
IF every one of those 8K votes went to the Republican then he would have won that particular county.
Besides this is supposedly a Democratic fraud to win CONGRESS, Robert?
Seems that did not work out to well.
,,,,,,, or did you not actually read the whole story?
This concerns a Congressional vote, not the Presidential vote!
Last edited:
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
Robert Prey
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2011
- Messages
- 6,705
A witness to fraud is evidence. Obviously.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
You have provided here no witnesses to fraud. You have provided witnesses to events (or purported events) which you say are the consequent of fraud.
Again, you really don't know what "witnesses" are, do you?
Robert Prey
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2011
- Messages
- 6,705
And you don't know what a Poll Watcher is.
Straw Man
Flammable
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2012
- Messages
- 8,184
Robert, it's all conjecture and hearsay. Someone saying something doesn't make it so. I thought you may have got that by now.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
I know that poll watchers are not allowed, by law, to do what your alleged poll watcher claimed to do. Tabloid reporting again, Robert.
If you wish to discuss poll watching, I suggest you begin with the analysis of your story, which I wrote several days ago and which you have assiduously ignored. Do not simply refer to debunked claims as if they haven't been.
Bingowings
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2009
- Messages
- 90
Oh, but it DOES...
https://www.google.ca/search?q=%22In+a+democracy%2C+it+matters+not+who+gets+the+most+votes%22&btnG=Search&aqs=chrome.0.57.249&sugexp=chrome%2Cmod%3D10&gbv=1
Google said:
...except it's RP coining it, then quoting himself, then you quoting him. You don't appear to think you're Stalin though.
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
Last edited:
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Yup, as real as the Romney-backers in Philadelphia.
Robert Prey
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2011
- Messages
- 6,705
I think I get it. Every source you don't agree with is a bad source -- a tabloid, eh? So, Fox News is a tabloid, Army Times? a tabloid, Washington Times? a tabloid, Radio Station WMAL? a tabloid. And for your information, by law, what Poll Watchers do, is WATCH. Obviously.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
No, every source I find problems with is a bad source. I found several serious problems with your first poll-watcher story, which you admitted you got from a tabloid, and I described those problems. You have yet to address them, yet you seem to want us still to consider the story valid. That won't happen.
Other poll-watcher stories, for example, are anonymous anecdotes phoned in to a radio call-in show. Can you suggest a method by which such anecdotes can be tested and verified? Or must we, like you, simply take those anonymous stories on faith?
Stop whining when your sources are refuted, Robert.
Robert Prey
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2011
- Messages
- 6,705
Still More Voter Fraud
From: Seacoastonline
Election Fraud charged in New Hampshire
Voter fraud complaints from Rye, Manchester and Atkinson
"Rye resident files complaint alleging voting fraud"
"James Betti of Rye is suspicious about the high turnout and filed a complaint with the state attorney general's office. Turnout in Rye was 82 percent, with 3,846 ballots cast out of 4,680 voters, including 315 new voters who registered Election Day, said Town Clerk Beth Yeaton. She said only 42 voters, or less than 1 percent, filled out challenged-voter affidavits because they did not show photo ID when they voted..."
"In an e-mail to town moderator Bob Eaton, Betti, citing census figures and observations at the polls, spoke to an "implausibility" of having so many newly registered voters on Election Day. He said voter fraud may have occurred in Rye because the Democratic Party identified the local Republican state representatives as "hostile."
http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20121118-NEWS-211180324
From: Seacoastonline
Election Fraud charged in New Hampshire
Voter fraud complaints from Rye, Manchester and Atkinson
"Rye resident files complaint alleging voting fraud"
"James Betti of Rye is suspicious about the high turnout and filed a complaint with the state attorney general's office. Turnout in Rye was 82 percent, with 3,846 ballots cast out of 4,680 voters, including 315 new voters who registered Election Day, said Town Clerk Beth Yeaton. She said only 42 voters, or less than 1 percent, filled out challenged-voter affidavits because they did not show photo ID when they voted..."
"In an e-mail to town moderator Bob Eaton, Betti, citing census figures and observations at the polls, spoke to an "implausibility" of having so many newly registered voters on Election Day. He said voter fraud may have occurred in Rye because the Democratic Party identified the local Republican state representatives as "hostile."
http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20121118-NEWS-211180324