Merged The election was stolen/rigged!

[JayUtah]

Just another example of Robert's hate for democracy.

Certainly a distaste for the organs of democracy as constituted in the United States. It took me a while to realize the import of what our duct-tape helmed commentator was saying about "carte blanche" to commit voter fraud. There really does appear to be an arrogant belief among radical conservatives that unless they personally police the polling stations, the opposing party(ies) cannot be trusted not to stuff the ballot box. There is no faith in the election workers, no faith in the presently constituted law enforcement, no faith in the courts.

And yes, historically these "poll watching" activities have had the effect of intimidating and disenfranchising legitimate voters, especially those that would tend to favor other parties. Hence what passes under the guise of poll-watching has been shown to function more like poll-filtering, which is electoral fraud.

Few defendants will participate in a consent decree unless it is fairly obvious they will not prevail in court. The consent decree allows the defendant (in most cases) to escape a criminal conviction while accepting that they require special conditions and monitoring to regulate their behavior. While we cannot say that the RNC was guilty of the activities that precipitated the consent decree, we can say that they took the contrite way out.

How about the Professional Fraudsters of the Republican Party who gave Florida and the 2000 election to Bush? Why no mention of that?

That's receding into history far enough to lose relevance. I think it's more important to consider the recent registration activities of Strategic Allied Consulting under contract to the RNC. If you want to talk about electoral fraud in the 2012 election, look there. There are arrests and prosecutions, with a paper trail leading all the way to the top. Would SAC's activities have changed the outcome of the election? Probably not. It's significant only in that the RNC knowingly hired a firm with a history of shady registration practices, who finally got caught at it while holding an RNC contract.

The only legally actionable evidence of systematic attempts at voter fraud by a major political party in the 2012 election are against the RNC.

 

[Bobby]

There are 15 states with voter ID requirements. Obama lost all of them. What does that tell you?

The post should have read PHOTO voter ID requirement. Obama lost in those states. The others, the swing states, were easy pickins' for voter fraud.

In that case, there were 4 states that had a "strict" requirement for a photo ID, source, another 7 had a "non-strict" requirement. Romney did indeed win all 4 "strict" states, though he did not win all 11 states with any sort of photo ID requirement. There were 3 states with "strict" non-photo ID requirements, Romney did not win all of these, and a further 16 states with "non-strict" non-photo ID requirements, again Romney did not win all these.

What does your post tell us? That either you can't count, or can't research, though you can make unsubstatiated and false claims.

 

[Robert Prey]

In that case, there were 4 states that had a "strict" requirement for a photo ID, source, another 7 had a "non-strict" requirement. Romney did indeed win all 4 "strict" states, though he did not win all 11 states with any sort of photo ID requirement. There were 3 states with "strict" non-photo ID requirements, Romney did not win all of these, and a further 16 states with "non-strict" non-photo ID requirements, again Romney did not win all these.

What does your post tell us? That either you can't count, or can't research, though you can make unsubstatiated and false claims.

I gave the source for my claims and its multiple researched footnotes include your single source. Some of the language in the voting laws is ambiguous, but you have failed to cite specific examples to support your argument.

 

[Bobby]

I gave the source for my claims and its multiple researched footnotes include your single source. Some of the language in the voting laws is ambiguous, but you have failed to cite specific examples to support your argument.

The link you provided (ballotpedia) lists Hawaii as one of its 15 states requiring photo id - Obama won that one.

Ballotpedia also lists Arizona ("Every elector is required to show proof of identity at the polling place before receiving a ballot. The elector must announce his/her name, place of residence and present a photo ID.") as a state requiring photo id and provides the link here in support. Unfortunately, the linked page says:

Every qualified elector is required to show proof of identity at the polling place before receiving a ballot. The elector shall announce his/her name and place of residence or present the elector’s name and residence in writing to the election official. The elector shall present acceptable identification that:
1. Bears the name, address, and photograph of the elector (See List 1), or
2. Two different forms of identification that bear the name and address of the elector (See List 2), or
3. One form of acceptable photo identification with one form of non-photo identification that bears the name and address of the elector (See List 3)
[...]
List 2 - Acceptable forms of identification without a photograph that bear the name and address of the elector (two required)

Utility bill of the elector that is dated within 90 days of the date of the election. A utility bill may be for electric, gas, water, solid waste, sewer, telephone, cellular phone, or cable television
Bank or credit union statement that is dated within 90 days of the date of the election
Valid Arizona Vehicle Registration
[...]

Do you accept that as a specific example? Do you need more?

 

[Robert Prey]

The link you provided (ballotpedia) lists Hawaii as one of its 15 states requiring photo id - Obama won that one.

Ballotpedia also lists Arizona ("Every elector is required to show proof of identity at the polling place before receiving a ballot. The elector must announce his/her name, place of residence and present a photo ID.") as a state requiring photo id and provides the link here in support. Unfortunately, the linked page says:



Do you accept that as a specific example? Do you need more?

Your research is superficial. You did not check the links nor the links of the links. Both Arizona and Hawaii provide exceptions to the Photo ID rule:

Arizona

"List 2 - Acceptable forms of identification without a photograph that bear the name and address of the elector (two required)
Utility bill of the elector that is dated within 90 days of the date of the election. A utility bill may be for electric, gas, water, solid waste, sewer, telephone, cellular phone, or cable television
Bank or credit union statement that is dated within 90 days of the date of the election
Valid Arizona Vehicle Registration
Indian census card
Property tax statement of the elector's residence
Tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification
Arizona vehicle insurance card
Recorder's Certificate
Valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification, including a voter registration card issued by the County Recorder
Any mailing to the elector marked “Official Election Material”
An identification is "valid" unless it can be determined on its face that it has expired.

http://www.azsos.gov/election/Prop_200/poll_identification.htm

* * *

Hawaii

Notice to First Time Voters Who Register to Vote by Mail:

If you are (1) registering to vote for the first time in the State of Hawai'i; and (2) are mailing in this Affidavit on Application for Voter Registration, federal law (42 U.S.C. § 15483) requires you to provide proof of identification. Proof of identification includes a copy of:

A current and valid photo identification, or
A current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck or government document that shows your name and address.
If you do not provide the required proof of identification with this Affidavit on Application for Voter Registration, you will be required to do so at your polling place, or with your voted absentee mail-in ballot.

http://hawaii.gov/elections/voters/registration.htm/view?searchterm=photo

 

[Dcdrac]

Robert the fact remains, the GOP are not banging on about this, thye would be if there was even the faintests plausible whiff of fraud.

The are not wander why.....

 

[Robert Prey]

Robert the fact remains, the GOP are not banging on about this, thye would be if there was even the faintests plausible whiff of fraud.

The are not wander why.....

Obama's racist Attorney General is hardly a friend of honest elections. That may have something to do with it.

 

[Dcdrac]

RObert tell me why the GOP is not taking issue with the Election results nor screamng blue murder about fraud.

So far you have not provided any eivdence that is plausible to back your assertion.

 

[Bobby]

Your research is superficial. You did not check the links nor the links of the links. Both Arizona and Hawaii provide exceptions to the Photo ID rule:

Arizona

"List 2 - Acceptable forms of identification without a photograph that bear the name and address of the elector (two required)
Utility bill of the elector that is dated within 90 days of the date of the election. A utility bill may be for electric, gas, water, solid waste, sewer, telephone, cellular phone, or cable television
Bank or credit union statement that is dated within 90 days of the date of the election
Valid Arizona Vehicle Registration
Indian census card
Property tax statement of the elector's residence
Tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification
Arizona vehicle insurance card
Recorder's Certificate
Valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification, including a voter registration card issued by the County Recorder
Any mailing to the elector marked “Official Election Material”
An identification is "valid" unless it can be determined on its face that it has expired.

http://www.azsos.gov/election/Prop_200/poll_identification.htm

* * *

Hawaii

Notice to First Time Voters Who Register to Vote by Mail:

If you are (1) registering to vote for the first time in the State of Hawai'i; and (2) are mailing in this Affidavit on Application for Voter Registration, federal law (42 U.S.C. § 15483) requires you to provide proof of identification. Proof of identification includes a copy of:

A current and valid photo identification, or
A current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck or government document that shows your name and address.
If you do not provide the required proof of identification with this Affidavit on Application for Voter Registration, you will be required to do so at your polling place, or with your voted absentee mail-in ballot.

http://hawaii.gov/elections/voters/registration.htm/view?searchterm=photo

Glad you agree that your ballotpedia source is inaccurate when it declares 15 states require photo ID (as Arizona and Hawaii are amongst them), and you were incorrect to say Romney won them all.

 

[Travis]

I live in a state without a photo ID requirement for voting (we have to give our address then sign our signature). I would love for someone to explain to me how I could exploit this to commit voter fraud of any significance.

Robert, would you take up that challenge?

 

[JayUtah]

Obama's racist Attorney General is hardly a friend of honest elections. That may have something to do with it.

Playing the race card, are you? Do I need to remind you of what you said about how people who play the race card deserve no respect from you?

 

[jaydeehess]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey
No. The mainstream networks underplayed the significance of Benghazi until it turned into a sex scandal. Ditto "Fast and Furious" which most voters who do not watch Fox News never heard of.

No, Robert , I was referring to coverage of the Bengahzi furor BEFORE Patearus' dilly-dallying was revealed.
In fact the GOP was decrying it within hours of it occurring.

As for F&F, I saw it covered on CNN and a quick google search shows its been covered by The Daily Beast, CBS News, and NBC San Diego among others, including Fox News.
Wrong again Robert.

Yeah, well F and F is about 2 years old. The mainstream networks didn't touch it till Holder got indicted for contempt.

ooohh you thought the goal posts would look better over there...

So, I see, the fact that it was definately covered by every mainstream media outlet in the months just prior to the election is somehow negated by your declaring (I cannot be bothered to check your 'facts' on that) they did not cover it two years ago?
In fact, my recollection is that I first learned of it at least one year ago on most likely CNN.

 

[jaydeehess]

Obama's racist Attorney General is hardly a friend of honest elections. That may have something to do with it.

So rather than attempt to bring to court, actions against the Obama administration, or even bring the matter to the mainstream news organizations, the GOP is content to let it slide, to lay down rather than fight, to silently turn the other cheek?

 

[jaydeehess]

Fast and Furious reporting October 3, 2011 5:59 PM by CBS

From CBS News on February 23, 2011 6:54 PM
Brian Terry died in Dec. of 2010.

Robert Prey is proven wrong again with a 2 minute google search

 

[kookbreaker]

So rather than attempt to bring to court, actions against the Obama administration, or even bring the matter to the mainstream news organizations, the GOP is content to let it slide, to lay down rather than fight, to silently turn the other cheek?

Robbie is still upset because the Obama administration didn't hunt down two loudmouth clowns who in 2008 in Philadelphia at an election site who probably caused far more Obama votes to be lost than McCain votes. At least they were not hunted down to the satisfaction of Fox News, who stalked the loudmouth this election to ludicrous levels.

 

[JayUtah]

This is getting even sillier than it was when it started.

Robert, you told us there were definitely disenfranchised voters in the unanimous precincts. Now, weeks later, you can't produce a single disenfranchised voter. You can give us only handwaving excuses about how they must not have heard about it, or have no way of knowing that their votes weren't counted.

You told us a Republican "poll watcher" reported in a tabloid had seen rigged voting machines, then backpedaled when you discovered it was illegal for him to be doing what he claimed to do, besides his non-credible description. You cherry-pick other examples of voting machine malfunctions in Obama's favor, ignoring malfunctions in Romney's favor, and can't tell us how that's evidence of fraud.

You reported the Maine GOP chairman making a laughingstock of himself by claiming vast hordes of racial minorities being bussed around to allegedly cast fraudulent votes. You dropped that when the story was exposed as non-credible nonsense.

You tried to foist James O'Keefe's video onto us as valid news reporting. You omit that O'Keefe is hardly a trustworthy source, having gotten in trouble all this summer for falsely accusing minorities etc. of ineligible voting, for editing his videos to remove attempts by registration and poll workers to prevent him from attempting to vote or register fraudulently, for fraudulently assuming the identity of a specific living person (for which he is under criminal investigation), and basically perpetrating electoral fraud himself while attempt to entrap GOP operatives into being his accomplices. While O'Keefe did finally catch a state campaign worker on video uncomfortably answering his confederate's insistent, leading questions about how to get some non-existent, hypothetical pro-Democratic voters past poll workers, no fraud was actually committed, and the campaign promptly removed him. The subsequent investigation is leaning toward charging O'Keefe's confederate with attempted voter fraud instead, because it's not clear what the campaign worker believed he was assisting.

Amazing how all of O'Keefe's exposé videos start with one of his confederates trying to commit fraud and draw others into it, rather than exposing fraud being committed without his instigation. Contrast that with the documented RNC registration fraud I outlined above. That was discovered by a private citizen who reported it to police. The criminal investigation discovered voter fraud on the part of the firm contracted by the RNC and undertaken without any poking, prodding, or instigation by any averse party. No possibility of entrapment there. This is the subject of ongoing criminal investigation in which arrests have already been made. In other words the only arrests and prosecutions for electoral fraud in the 2012 federal election are of Republicans, Robert. Instead of trying to trump up evidence that the "Evil Democrats" rigged the 2012 election, why don't you deal with the properly reported and prosecuted evidence elsewhere?

Now, Robert, you're trying oh-so-desperately to connect election outcome to the presence or absence of voter ID requirements and other laws aimed at making voting more restrictive. Not only are you failing to make a correlation, you're additionally failing to show how any such correlation would necessary be evidence of fraud. You're trying desperately to show that Democrats cannot prevail where access to the polls is more stringent, trying further to suggest that pro-Democrat voters must somehow be voting fraudulently and fear getting caught.

There is no evidence anywhere that this occurs.

In fact, I find it amusing to read information leaking from GOP sources that voter ID laws and other legislative measures aimed and restricting access to the polls -- invariably sponsored by GOP legislators, passed only by GOP-controlled states, and typically seen as suspicious by international election officials and well as American civil rights groups -- are motivated behind-the-scenes not in the least by "voter fraud" concerns, but as we suspected by research that shows that voters who oppose them tend to vote in patterns these laws would restrict or eliminate. Take, for example, the GOP former governor of Florida, who revealed that GOP strategization for curtailing early voting did not even discuss electoral fraud, but only the finding that Democrats tend more to vote early than Republicans do.

Then, Robert, you wrap up by telling us that the RNC cannot pursue legal remedy against voter fraud because of a consent decree arising out of credible charges of GOP voter intimidation. Of course a careful reading of the decree says no such thing: Republicans are simply prohibited from appointing themselves poll police and acting in a partisan manner to restrict access to the polls. When you realized there was no actual legal prohibition against bringing charges of electoral fraud, you backpedaled again and handwaved about how it's ineffectual. (Oddly enough, it was apparently very effectual at forcing the RNC into the consent decree you seem so odious!)

In other words, this thread has witnessed you backpedaling away from one silly argument after another, in addition to quite an amusing partisan meltdown. I doubt even you know where the goalposts are anymore. But 12 pages later you've produce no more evidence of actual fraud than you had at the beginning. Just a lot of frankly desperate partisan handwaving.

 

[Myron Proudfoot]

Robbie is still upset because the Obama administration didn't hunt down two loudmouth clowns who in 2008 in Philadelphia at an election site who probably caused far more Obama votes to be lost than McCain votes. At least they were not hunted down to the satisfaction of Fox News, who stalked the loudmouth this election to ludicrous levels.

And if you look at the original stories, the "New Black Panthers" were there to prevent whites from coming to try to intimidate voters in the majority black precinct. In other words, they were, in their own twisted-CT way, trying to stop voter intimidation.

But then, one of the 2 guys was yelling racial epitaphs at white voters in the precinct, so they managed to blend voter protection with voter intimidation, and did both ineptly. . .

 

[Robert Prey]

I live in a state without a photo ID requirement for voting (we have to give our address then sign our signature). I would love for someone to explain to me how I could exploit this to commit voter fraud of any significance.

Robert, would you take up that challenge?

No. But i"m sure Acorn or Jim Moran's son could help you.

 

[vtbub]

Somehow with Robert's musings, I expect Phil Hendrie to pop out and come clean.

Wake me up when we actually have a disenfranchised voter.

 

[jaydeehess]

No. But i"m sure Acorn or Jim Moran's son could help you.

Odd how you seem so very convinced that such a thing is possible and indeed took place in large numbers earlier this very month, but you can't quite explain exactly how one actually goes about it.