Vote fraud in Maine?

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, no. You should not believe me that it's fraud. You should review the facts yourself and maybe come back with a more rational explanation.

For now I will just wait till Saturday evening or Sunday morning - after the results are in. Until then ... Kölle alaaf!

Again, what is your evidence for vote fraud?

[ETA: And in case you haven't heard, the results are already in. If you mean who will get Maine's delegates, you'll have to wait until the convention to find out.]

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

No, no. You should not believe me that it's fraud. You should review the facts yourself and maybe come back with a more rational explanation.

Does "the people counting the votes made innocent errors" qualify as a rational explanation? Does "the people claiming that the announced vote totals aren't correct got their information from people who haven't actually seen the ballots" qualify as a rational explanation?

 

[madfoot]

You're quoting from page 4 of a 4 page thread!

So how come you only talked about the possibility of voter fraud for the first 3 pages?

I intentionally distanced myself a voter fraud conspiracy during the first three pages. This is because I believe there are other reasonable explanations, and the debacle that happened on Saturday is not necessarily a result of a conspiracy.

It seemed like a safe claim to make. Two different sets of numbers being reported is suspicious, regardless of what conclusion you come to.

One of them have to be inaccurate, since the self-reported results show more votes were casted than counted in the official tally. And WatchTheVote2012.com already got the Iowa results changed, so it's not like they have no credibility. They could be wrong in this case - WatchTheVote2012.com could be reporting false results, or one of their sources may have fabricated or inaccurately reported their precint tally. I never said the official tally was inaccurate, only that there is a discrepancy.

I never said it wasn't, but ineptness is still suspicious.

There is no evidence. And no one said there is. Fraud is just one of several possible reasons for what happened in Maine.

I think that's a sensible claim to make.

You'll just have to take my word for it that I'm not "JAQing off", and I don't believe that the Maine caucus was the result of a conspiracy. I just think that it's one of several plausible explanations.

[ETA: And in case you haven't heard, the results are already in...]

And those results are wrong.

Does "the people counting the votes made innocent errors" qualify as a rational explanation? Does "the people claiming that the announced vote totals aren't correct got their information from people who haven't actually seen the ballots" qualify as a rational explanation?

I think both of those are rational explanations. I just happen to believe "the votes were skewed in Mitt Romney's favor" is a rational explanation too, for all the reasons Rachel Maddow said. Why is that unreasonable?

 

[Cain]

In Maine you have to watch out for the college students. Only the Democrat party steals elections. Everybody knows that.

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

6000 in the whole damned STATE? That's it?

Obama is going to take Maine.

How many people want to waste a Saturday attending a meeting in which the vote carries no meaning besides giving the news media something to talk about?

 

[Cuddles]

OK, am I missing something here?

Androscoggin County total (official): Romney 148, Paul 212, Santorum 132, Gingrich 12
Androscoggin County total (WatchTheVote2012.com): Romney 188, Paul 262, Santorum 188, Gingrich 13

According to the official figures here, Paul had 42% of the vote. According to watchthevote2012, Paul had 40% of the vote. So the Paul supporters are all up in arms because... they think he actually did worse than the official figures say? I mean sure, any vote fraud is bad, even in a meaningless, non-binding poll of a small fraction of one party, but exactly what kind of fraudsters would mess with the results in such a way that the only effect is a very minor benefit to the person they're supposedly trying to harm?

 

[Firestone]

OK, am I missing something here?

According to the official figures here, Paul had 42% of the vote. According to watchthevote2012, Paul had 40% of the vote. So the Paul supporters are all up in arms because... they think he actually did worse than the official figures say? I mean sure, any vote fraud is bad, even in a meaningless, non-binding poll of a small fraction of one party, but exactly what kind of fraudsters would mess with the results in such a way that the only effect is a very minor benefit to the person they're supposedly trying to harm?

In the watchthevote2012 count, the difference in votes between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney is a whopping ... 10 votes larger (74 versus 64).

Since the crucial breathtaking potentially earth-shattering issue is who "wins" the meaningless Maine poll statewide, the watchthevote2012 is better for Ron Paul than the official count. By 10 votes no less!

Typical NWO conspiracy, it seems.

 

[madfoot]

In the watchthevote2012 count, the difference in votes between Ron Paul and Mitt Romney is a whopping ... 10 votes larger (74 versus 64).

Since the crucial breathtaking potentially earth-shattering issue is who "wins" the meaningless Maine poll statewide, the watchthevote2012 is better for Ron Paul than the official count. By 10 votes no less!

Typical NWO conspiracy, it seems.

This is an ugly strawman. I'm not an NWO conspiracy theorist. Isn't it breaking some sort of rule to keep calling me paranoid?

Anyway, this isn't the argument at all. But if you accept the WatchTheVote2012.com vote tally - and it's possible that it's inaccurate - then, since they're reporting more votes in Androscoggin County than the official results indicated, then the official tally must be wrong. Maybe some counties were uncounted, or the results were manipulated - who knows.

Now, I'd appreciate if you stopped calling me a conspiracy theorist for looking at the evidence.

Edited by LashL: 

Edited for civility.

 

[Firestone]

This is an ugly strawman. I'm not an NWO conspiracy theorist. Isn't it breaking some sort of rule to keep calling me paranoid?

I didn't call you anything, but feel sorry you felt that way.

Anyway, this isn't the argument at all. But if you accept the WatchTheVote2012.com vote tally - and it's possible that it's inaccurate - then, since they're reporting more votes in Androscoggin County than the official results indicated, then the official tally must be wrong. Maybe some counties were uncounted, or the results were manipulated - who knows.

The problem is that there is no reason to believe the WatchTheVote2012.com vote tally more than the official count.

And even if the official count in Androscoggin County is wrong and the WatchTheVote2012.com vote tally is correct, the actual resulting difference between Romney and Paul amounts to 10 votes.
That's the reason I don't see any evidence of intentional rigging of the vote.

 

[madfoot]

I didn't call you anything, but feel sorry you felt that way.

Who was "Typical NWO conspiracy, it seems" directed at.

The problem is that there is no reason to believe the WatchTheVote2012.com vote tally more than the official count.

I know. I think the opposite is true as well.

And even if the official count in Androscoggin County is wrong and the WatchTheVote2012.com vote tally is correct, the actual resulting difference between Romney and Paul amounts to 10 votes.

Completely irrelevant.

 

[Firestone]

Who was "Typical NWO conspiracy, it seems" directed at.

It was not directed at a person.

It is a qualification of the not clearly formulated claim underlying this thread.

The mythical NWO always works in complicated ways to achieve results that could be achieved quite simply.

Here, to increase Romney's advance by 10 votes, we are supposed to believe (well, nobody makes a positive claim, as has been said before, it is just insinuated) that they rig the results of a county, knowing very well that all the people present at the concerned caucuses will be potential witnesses to this fraud.
Doesn't make much sense.
An error (by the officials, by WatchTheVote2012.com, or by both) seems a much more logical explanation than fraud, given the minimal effect of the discrepancy.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You'll just have to take my word for it that I'm not "JAQing off",

No I don't. I prefer to look at the ample evidence I've pointed to that you are doing just that.

 

[Oliver]

So I have to take back the fraud allegation .. The Maine Republican Party IS *********** stupid.

Maine GOP says some votes went to spam

By ALEXANDER BURNS | 2/17/12 10:36 AM EST
Maine Republican Party chairman Charlie Webster has admitted that the state party made numerous clerical errors in counting the state’s caucus results — even omitting some votes because emails reporting tallies “went to spam” in an email account.

 

[Spindrift]

I didn't call you anything, but feel sorry you felt that way.

The problem is that there is no reason to believe the WatchTheVote2012.com vote tally more than the official count.

And even if the official count in Androscoggin County is wrong and the WatchTheVote2012.com vote tally GUESS is correct, the actual resulting difference between Romney and Paul amounts to 10 votes.
That's the reason I don't see any evidence of intentional rigging of the vote.

ftfy

 

[madfoot]

It was not directed at a person.

It is a qualification of the not clearly formulated claim underlying this thread.

The mythical NWO always works in complicated ways to achieve results that could be achieved quite simply.

Here, to increase Romney's advance by 10 votes, we are supposed to believe (well, nobody makes a positive claim, as has been said before, it is just insinuated) that they rig the results of a county, knowing very well that all the people present at the concerned caucuses will be potential witnesses to this fraud.
Doesn't make much sense.
An error (by the officials, by WatchTheVote2012.com, or by both) seems a much more logical explanation than fraud, given the minimal effect of the discrepancy.

Actually, we don't know how bad the discrepancy was. We won't know until at least tomorrow.

No I don't. I prefer to look at the ample evidence I've pointed to that you are doing just that.

There is no evidence that I'm doing that.

 

[mortimer]

There is no evidence that I'm doing that.

Of course there is. It's the very first thing you did when creating this thread.

 

[madfoot]

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 12.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Funny, earlier you admitted that you were JAQing off, but claimed that you only did it in the thread title (post 104). Now you're denying it altogether.

 

[Firestone]

So I have to take back the fraud allegation .. The Maine Republican Party IS *********** stupid.

At the very least their system for choosing convention delegates is weird:

Party officials now say they will not announce the final results of the straw poll until March 10, after all towns have voted and reported their results.

The presidential straw poll is a meaningless beauty contest unrelated to the more important selection of the state’s 24 delegates, which will take place at a state party convention in May.

The distended process, and the fact that the delegates, once selected, are not bound to vote for a particular candidate, have reduced the state’s relevance in the national nominating process.


NYTimes The Caucus blog

 

[Oliver]

At the very least their system for choosing convention delegates is weird:

Well, what will you do about it? Some people in here have the guts to call that Democracy.