What are the enemies of democracy?

Rigged elections are rarely overturned, but vote fraud has often proved to have occurred.

"Other investigations revealed similar results elsewhere. The Orlando Sentinel found that 68,000 Florida voters are also registered in Georgia or North Carolina (the only two states it checked), 1,650 of whom voted twice in 2000 or 2002. The Kansas City Star discovered 300 “potential” cases of individual voter fraud, including Kansans voting in Missouri and St. Louisans voting in both the city and the surrounding suburbs. “I probably shouldn’t have voted in Kansas,” a Kansas City businesswoman named Lorraine Goodrich told the paper, owning up to the offense. “That was a mistake. Whoops! Oh my God, I’m going to get in so much trouble, aren’t I?”
SLATE, POLITICS, People Who Vote Twice, A sudden crackdown on an old trick., BY BILL GIFFORD, OCT 28, 2004.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2004/10/cracking-down-on-people-who-vote-twice.html

 

Ty for the link.

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." ― Aldous Huxley, Complete Essays, Vol. II: 1926-1929

 

You are correct, in a way, that the GOP (and conservatives in general) want to limit voting....... to eligible citizens. It is not difficult to understand that routine mail-in balloting is much more susceptible to fraud as is ballot harvesting and reduced ID verification. The Democrat political operatives knew this full well but had no reason to push such activities (that would have been counter-productive and abominably stupid which they ain't). Like condoms in school, one does not have to push for sex. Just put the condoms out and let nature take its well known course.

Every state allows the elderly and disabled to vote absentee. Some states allow absentee voting by people with employment hardships. At least one, CA, allows absentee voting for any reason. But even that is not universal mail-in balloting which is self evident Katie bar the door.

 

In around 2011 Obama using his interstate federal authority told states they could not compare voter rolls.

 

If one state's vote is fraudulent, that disenfranchises voters in other states.. Besides, SCOTUS is the primary (not appeals) court for suits between states. There are usually at least a few reasons that with a bit of parsing and twisting a court can find a plausible excuse for not hearing any case. You can bet your bippy that SCOTUS was going to find a way to run away from the 2020 election and go hide

 

You have mastered communication skills normally acquired in college. A good thing.

 

Every state has some mechanism for cleaning their registration lists. Some are efficient, some over do it and purge legit voters, etc. Some do not do it enough.

There is no fraud. It does occur, but the numbers are miniscule.

 

You assume that I want to prove you wrong.

You shouldn't make such assumptions.

No, my intent is, that, when yo make a claim, link to something so I can make sure you are interpreting
the event correctly.

Often, when someone makes a claim, they provide the 'evidence', the so-called evidence doesn't exactly corroborate the claim that was made.

That is why I need you to provide your evidence. And I will check out your link, thank you.

Okay, I reviewed the article and I accept your premise.

However, it is well known that in the earlier part of the 20th century, voter shenanigans happened a lot. Your event happened in 1948. Would Johnson ever have won future elections if he had not one that one, and would he still not have become VP during Kennedy? No one knows.

Thing is, in the modern era, since Kennedy onward, all the studies which have been conducted show that this does not happen.

Look at Gore v Bush, Gore could have easily pressed on, and he might have won, but he didn't 'for the good of the nation'. so the point is, we've evolved as a nation and this idea that one party cheats is no longer true.

However, one thing is true, which hasn't happened before, is what Trump and the republicans are doing right now, which is harassing legit election officials, getting them to quit, replacing them with party hacks, so in the next election, they will more easily toss out their opponents electors and replace them with their own. This is the current strategy and it is happening, right now and it is republicans that are doing it all under the false premise that 'dems stole the election', an allegation for which no proof have been provided, to date.

 

Prove there is no fraud. You can’t make that statement without proof.

 

So you admit that LBJ stole his US Senate seat. You excuse that by saying that "voter shenanigans happened a lot" back then, but that it doesn't today, because, well, you really don't say. You just say that "studies . . . show that this does not happen," providing no evidence whatsoever on how that claim is true. Also, how do studies prove a negative? Also, it appears that you wrote your response fresh from reading the article, because an LBJ loyalist makes that same bullshit argument: that it supposedly happened a lot, summarily dismissing the gravity of the event.

Do you know what studies actually show? It's not that voter fraud does not happen; it's that it's very, very difficult to prove, due to the painstaking process involved in proving it: forensic teams would have to "analyze each vote, cross-reference it with lists of eligible voters, check those, and drill deep on any suspicious cases." (1) In fact, the point of me referencing the FACT that LBJ stole a US Senate seat was to prove the point on how difficult it is to prove. So hard, in fact, that it took over HALF A CENTURY to prove LBJ stole an election, which, apparently, happened a lot. This is why we need more, not less, voter integrity measures, which Democrats are staunchly against. Your party refers to voter integrity measures as "voter suppression."

Your party does not give a crap about the integrity of democracy. Joe Biden himself referred to voter integrity measures as Jim Eagle, because, well, one, he's a dumbass, and, two, it appears that he does not want voter integrity measures implemented. His questionable win was due in large part by the new rules implemented in 2020, which heavily favored Democrats.

1. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10000872396390443864204577621732936167586

 

Ever heard of "innocent until proven guilty"?

Would you like to know why that is a fundamental principle in law?

Because you don't prove a negative, it's a principle in logic.

You accuse, the onus on YOU to prove it, not for the accused to prove their innocence.

Why? Because it's not only logical, it's just.

So, YOU prove there is fraud sufficient to support the allegation that 'dems stole the election'.

I'll be waiting.

The ONLY reason I state 'there is no fraud' is because no one has proven it yet. It's not a claim, it's an observation.

I'm still waiting.

 

Patricio:

Also Patricio:

In conclusion, Patricio's logic:
It's a logical fallacy to prove a negative. However, studies have proven that voter fraud does not happen.

 

They don't. They prove a positive. A number, a small number

And from that small number, it is safe to conclude it's not a big enough number to be a problem.

Well, is it not true that in the modern era it doesn't happen?

The studies show that. So, it's a fair statement.

If you can provide evidence that fraud is happening, on any scale worthy of attention, please provide it.

Why do you care? You party elected the biggest conman of all time.

Your party created 'interstate crosscheck', which purged 1.1 million blacks from the voter registration rolls in 2016,

https://www.gregpalast.com/election-stolen-heres/

Crosscheck ended by a federal judge

https://www.gregpalast.com/court-checks-crosscheck-indiana/

Republicans sabatoged recounts in Michigan

https://www.gregpalast.com/the-republican-sabotage-of-the-vote-recounts-in-michigan-and-wisconsin/

Republican Secy of State, Kemp, while running for Governor, refuses to recuse himself as Secy of State,
which controls the election apparatus he ran in. He purged 591,000 voters from the registration rolls in a process
that is mathematically biased against minorities

https://www.gregpalast.com/georgias-brian-kemp-responsible-for-massive-purge-of-states-voter-rolls/

And I'm just getting started.

So, please Don't lecture democrats on 'integrity'.

 

Sigh ...

You and every Trump supporting rightie on this forum keep saying, over and over ad nauseum, that "routine mail-in balloting is much more susceptible to fraud" but not one of you has ever produced any facts to back that up. But hey, what the hell, I'll try again: Please provide reliable, verifiable facts to support your claim. Otherwise, your credibility becomes nill on that issue. And how does the cliche "Katy bar the door" apply?

What do you have against condoms? Would you prefer that high schoolers go "bareback"? Or do you really think that you can stop puberty and the natural desire for sexual intercourse by denying safety measures like condoms or "morning after" pills? Is it really better to force teens, especially girls, to live with the consequences and all the regrets that come with them for a lifetime? Just for having sex? I think it is far better to make sure that they 1) understand all possible negative consequences and 2) have access to every tool in existence to protect themselves. Perhaps, like many well-meaning oldsters, you think that those consequences will keep kids from having sex. It won't, as we see daily. And why should they not? Is there any other purpose for the clitoris? Think about it.

 

You can't prove a negative.

Here are lists, for the nation and for each state, on incidences of voter fraud:

https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

They admit that this is a sampling, but it's as comprehensive as any that I could find. Please note that the Heritage Foundation is a conservative organization, not liberal.

If there has been massive fraud, enough to sway results, that was never noticed, then soneone is smarter than everyone else in America if they managed to get away with it. But I doubt it very much.

 

You said that studies proved that voter fraud does not happen. You said that. That is proving a negative, which you said in another post is a logical fallacy. You can say that that is proving a positive, but just because you say it, it doesn't make it so. I can say that I did not type this post, but that does not make it so.

Again, the reason why the number is so low is because it is hard to prove voter fraud. Again, it took over half a century to prove that LBJ stole a US Senate seat. How long do you think it would take to prove that someone stole the presidency? There have been over a hundred US Senators since this country's inception. There has been less than 50 presidents.

No.

Greg Palast? Seriously? Should I counter this with stuff from Sean Hannity? Please be serious in this conversation. I'm using Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, MIT, and you counter those sources with Greg Palast. Jeeze.

 

Okay, the explanation wasn't precise.

now that you have pinned me down, it should be worded this

"studies have proven that the fraud numbers are so small that claims of voter fraud sufficient to alter the outcome of an election are not likely.

They prove the numbers are small.

That's a positive and not contradictory to the logical fallacy.

 

No, they prove the numbers of fraud incidents are miniscule.

Technically, they proved there WAS FRAUD, just not much.

That is proof of a positive number. A SMALL NUMBER

And not much equals "not enough to alter the outcome of an election".

What I did was draw a conclusion, that they proved no fraud.

By that I meant 'not enough to alter the outcome of an election'.

that's imprecise language, I admit, I should have honed my language more precisely, as I did, above, for all the nitpickers in the peanut gallery.

 

Sure it's both sides, solidified by Citizens United. The ultimate scotus f-up. But what can we expect from people who are experts in law and understand little else.

 

“THE world has watched the American Presidential election with mounting
disbelief as tales of incompetence and skullduggery have emerged. None
of these electoral misdeeds have surprised me -- but I am puzzled that
they have taken this long to be uncovered. I know they occur: I fixed
an election myself.

He was clearly in charge of this polling station, but I didn't dare ask how he
came to be in charge. Instead I gathered my courage and went to look
at the back of the voting machine to see if any votes had been
registered. Fifty had. It was seven-thirty in the morning. The polls
didn't open until eight.”
THE SUNDAY TELEGRAPH, How I rigged, the Democrats' vote,
Cindy Blake recalls a happy day spent corrupting democracy in
Philadelphia, By Kort E Patterson, Sunday Telegraph London 19/11/2000
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4256932/How-I-rigged-the-Democrats-vote.html

The fact that elections are often rigged in America is well documented.
Political insiders probably get a merit badge for "corrupting democracy".

 

If a car is left unlocked with the keys in the ignition it is much more susceptible to being stolen than a locked car with no keys. This is prima facie common sense and self evident. No one needs a study to prove it.

I don't think junior high and high schoolers should be encouraged to have sex. Despite the administrators rationalizing to the contrary making condoms available encourages illicit sex. Providing condoms is not explaining the negative consequences; it is overtly helping them avoid and abetting the negative consequences. Boys are going to get in the girlie show at the county fair but it ought to be made hard and difficult to do.

 

You are correct about both sides, but incorrect about Citizens United. SCOTUS simply interpreted the Constitution as written and could not constitutionally rule any other way. If you don't like it then get going on a constitutional amendment to water down the right of speech and to clarify the right to privacy.

 

The odds of anyone boarding an aircraft with the will and means to hijack it and/or crash it are minuscule, virtually non-existent. So why do we have all of this security check (including picture ID) even though proving nefarious intent of an airplane passenger is magnitudes easier than proving voter fraud.?

 

I’m only asking you to meet your own standard.

 

what standard would that be?