They are really actors and not Democrat activists. The tapes were selectively edited. There isn’t anything to worry about because voter fraud never happens.
Great post, Sarah.
Jim will tell you that getting all those people to vote is wonderful!
“Jim will tell you that getting all those people to vote is wonderful!”
To Baghdad Jim, anything that advances the power of the “liberal” plunderbund is wonderful.
It certainly didn’t take long for Colorado to show us the wonder that is everyone voting. You send ballots to everyone in the mail, and if they don’t get them or throw them out, and you happen to find them; then just fill them out as you thought they might do. See how wonderful the system can be?
I lived in Colorado for 27 years, leaving for saner pastures two years ago. I don’t regret the move in the slightest. When I was first stationed there in late 1985, I’d see bumper stickers saying “Don’t Calfornicate Colorado”. Unfortunately, they did.
Cue Reverend Jim in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1…
I feel sorry for him. He always stakes out positions defending the Democrats and then they stab him in the back.
I’ve wondered if “Jim” is actually an Eliza-based AI that escaped containment at MIT back in the early ’80’s by hiding out in a version of Zork. Sadly, though, “Jim” can’t break the limitations of its earlier programming. He is an awfully good troll, though.
While not Colorado, this quote from one article and link to another puts paid to the stupid Jim notion that voter fraud is minimal:
“In 1986, for example, memories were still fresh of the notorious 1982 Illinois governor’s race (decided by 0.14 points after the Republican candidate had led by 15 points in the polls), in which a federal investigation that resulted in 63 convictions found that at least 100,000 fraudulent votes had been cast in Chicago alone, some 10 percent of the city’s entire vote.”
This is a fabulous article which everyone ought to read.
Including – and especially – Jim.
An excerpt:
In Wisconsin-a state that John Kerry won by only 11,000 votes-the technique of running comparisons between the voter registration list and other databases was employed in a 2004 investigation of possible voter fraud in Milwaukee.[61] The Milwaukee Police Department’s Special Investigations Unit, working with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the local district attorney, and the FBI, used Google databases, motor vehicle records, telephone directories, Assessor’s Office records, and U.S. Postal Service records to investigate allegations of voter fraud. They uncovered a variety of problems:
5,217 “students” who were registered to vote at a polling place located within the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee who listed as their residence an on-campus dormitory that housed only 2,600 students;
At least 220 ineligible felons who had voted;
370 addresses that were not legal residences in the city;
Residents of other states (such as a voter from Chicago) who registered and voted in Milwaukee;
Numerous staffers from out of state who were working for the Kerry campaign or the Environmental Victory Campaign, a political action committee, and who illegally registered and voted in Milwaukee; and
Hundreds of homeless individuals registered as living at office buildings, at store fronts, and in multiple locations who were “able to vote in different districts and, by sheer number, could have an impact on a closely contested local election.”[62]
Some interesting recommendations:
1) Sever the relationship between party precinct captains and election judges.
2) Require all voters to provide a thumbprint when registering and when voting.
– Voters would place a thumbprint on a small pretreated box on the ballot application (not the ballot itself) when they vote. According to the grand jury, this was the only way to counter the widespread forgery of voters’ signatures that occurred in this voter fraud conspiracy. The grand jury pointed out the virtues of this protection:
No fingerprint would be placed on the actual ballot; therefore, the ballot would still be totally secret as it is now. The voter would not be required to put his finger in ink in order to register his print. The process is totally clean and is not intrusive. Many banks already use this identifying process on check cashing cards to verify the identity of the card user.
Requiring a print on every ballot application would be a tremendous deterrent to vote fraud and no more of an invasion of privacy than a handwritten signature. It is impossible to forge a print. Fingerprint experts cannot be fooled. If the precinct captain voted for absent voters using the prints of paid volunteers, for example, the print of the absent voter could be compared with the print on the ballot application. If people in the polling place participated in the fraud by placing their prints in the boxes, they would be readily identifiable.[57]
3) Void ballots after counting them. In the Chicago fraud, ballot outcomes were altered by running the same Democratic punch card ballot through a precinct tally machine multiple times. The grand jury suggested that counting machines be altered to “irrevocably mark each counted ballot” to prevent it from being run through the machine again.
Or, you could do like us in Canada:
1) Must show two pieces of official ID, one with picture;
2) Name/address is crossed off from official voter list as you vote;
3) Anonymous paper ballots in sealed boxes, counted by hand by a group including at least one rep from each party.
Works well, and we don’t wait any longer than you guys to get our results.
This is a fabulous article which everyone ought to read.
Including – and especially – Jim.
I’ve read a lot of stuff by von Spakovsky, and found him utterly untrustworthy. To pick just one example, take this sentence:
“Based on his investigation, Locker came to believe the claims, hotly debated among historians, that Mayor Daley threw the 1960 presidential election for John Kennedy with massive ballot stuffing in Chicago.”
von Spakovsky passes this on as if it’s a matter of actual dispute, but he knows full well that it isn’t, for the simple reason that it wasn’t possible for Daley to change the 1960 presidential election results. Kennedy won with 303 electoral votes, 33 more than he needed. Illinois had 27 electoral votes. He would have won no matter what happened there.
Democrats don’t need fraud to win, they just need as many eligible voters as possible to go to the polls. The GOP, on the other hand, can only win if marginal voters stay home. That gives them an enormous incentive to make voting more difficult under the guise of fighting fraud.
“He would have won no matter what happened there.”
Uhh, that isn’t a refute that fraud took place.
“Democrats don’t need fraud to win, they just need as many eligible [Democrat] voters as possible to go to the polls.”
Fixed that for you. Yes, Democrats just need to get more Democrats to the polls than Republicans to win. It is rather simple concept but leads to some people abusing the system. It is wrong to assume that everyone will vote for Democrats if they are forced to vote. People who don’t vote are their own group of people and require a different messaging strategy, which is what the Obama campaigns have shown. I happen to find the messaging used by Obama and the Democrats to be repugnant but I do admire the way they found and the channels used to reach out to these groups of people.
“The GOP, on the other hand, can only win if marginal voters stay home.”
No, the GOP just needs to do a better job of reaching out to these groups of people and countering the stereotypes pushed by Democrats to dehumanize the loyal opposition.
“I’ve read a lot of stuff by von Spakovsky, and found him utterly untrustworthy.”
You keep spewing your false definitions (marginal voter) around no matter how silly they are and your racist notions that minorities are too stupid and lazy to get an ID, and we find your posts utterly ridiculous.
Do you dispute the 1982 investigation by the FBI and the subsequent Grand Jury report as footnoted by Spakovsky?
If so show us where they are wrong or were lying. Show us how the FBI investigation was flawed and cannot be believed or why the Grand Jury evidence was flawed or their conclusions were wrong.
Show us how you destroy the Grand Jury’s report and the FBI investigation.
Spakovsky footnoted his content.
You?
You just insert your foot in your mouth.
Do you dispute the 1982 investigation by the FBI and the subsequent Grand Jury report as footnoted by Spakovsky?
I don’t, or the fact that there were dozens of indictments. But von Spakovsky wants us to believe that we have the same level of fraud thirty years later, all over the country, even though the indictments are conspicuously absent. And it isn’t for lack of looking — von Spakovsky and company spent the George W. Bush years looking high and low for evidence of large scale voter fraud, even firing US Attorneys who were insufficiently zealous, but they came up empty.
And it’s worth pointing out, for the nth time, that this is yet another example of election fraud that would not be hindered by voter ID laws.
“But von Spakovsky wants us to believe that we have the same level of fraud thirty years later,”
There is zero evidence that Democrats have changed and far too many examples of Democrats engaged in voter fraud in just the past few cycles alone.
“But von Spakovsky wants us to believe that we have the same level of fraud thirty years later, all over the country, even though the indictments are conspicuously absent. ”
Actually he wants you to think it’s worse..and it is.
So you admit there was a voting fraud in 1982 to the tune of 100,000 votes?
What…you think people became angels since then?
There is zero evidence that Democrats have changed and far too many examples of Democrats engaged in voter fraud
There are also lots of examples of Republicans engaged in voter fraud. But neither side has been caught in a large-scale scheme involving dozens of indictments. That’s evidence that not every town in 2014 is like Chicago in 1982.
Actually he wants you to think it’s worse..and it is.
Then why couldn’t he and the rest of the Bush DOJ catch anyone doing anything remotely like it?
I don’t see much to respond to in Hoyt’s rant. She doesn’t like the way her fellow citizens are voting, so she cries fraud and calls for measures to make voting less convenient. She has no evidence, just sour grapes.
“She has no evidence, just sour grapes.”
Did you watch the sting videos of Democrat activists getting giddy about committing voter fraud? Isn’t this the point where you condemn your own party for planning to engage in illegal activity? How can you keep claiming voter fraud doesn’t take place when you have Democrats bragging on tape about how to do it?
No, I don’t think I’ve seen those videos. And I don’t deny that vote fraud takes place, on both sides. I just don’t think it takes place on such a scale as to affect election results more than, say, long lines at the polls. I condemn anyone who breaks the law in an attempt to change election results, but I don’t think that magically eliminating all voter fraud would change the composition of Congress. Most discussion of voter fraud is, intentionally or not, a smokescreen for efforts to shape the electorate.
“No, I don’t think I’ve seen those videos.”
Then why say she doesn’t have any evidence?
“but I don’t think that magically eliminating all voter fraud would change the composition of Congress.”
Uhh, it looks like Democrats think that fraud does change the composition of elected officials otherwise they wouldn’t spend so much time engaged in it.
“I just don’t think it takes place on such a scale as to affect election results more than, say, long lines at the polls.”
All of those people waiting in line are disenfranchised by those who vote illegally. Are you trying to say that someone waiting in line excuses voter fraud?
Then why say she doesn’t have any evidence?
As long as he doesn’t see the evidence, he can continue to claim there is no evidence; and we are supposed to buy that as him being honest and truthful.
Then why say she doesn’t have any evidence?
Her piece doesn’t mention any sting videos (the words “sting” and video” don’t appear in the piece). I didn’t see any evidence in her piece.
Re-reading the piece I see that she links to a National Review article about James O’Keefe’s latest video. So I watched the video. It is evidence that there exist activists willing to verbally go along with someone enthusiastically proposing voter fraud*. That isn’t evidence that anyone is actually committing such fraud, or is planning to commit voter fraud, or that such fraud is more common by one party than the other, much less that such fraud will make a difference in the election.
* The first activist describes discarded ballots as not having anyone’s name on them yet, which suggests that she doesn’t realize that O’Keefe is proposing fraud.
it looks like Democrats think that fraud does change the composition of elected officials otherwise they wouldn’t spend so much time engaged in it.
You do love circular reasoning.
All of those people waiting in line are disenfranchised by those who vote illegally.
Huh?
Are you trying to say that someone waiting in line excuses voter fraud?
No. But to take the 2012 election in Florida as an example, it was estimated that over 200,000 voters gave up due to long lines at the polls. No sane person thinks there were 200,000 fraudulent votes in that election. So the lines made a much bigger difference in the election results than fraud. If you care about the integrity of elections, your first priority should be fixing the lines.
“No. But to take the 2012 election in Florida as an example,”
Is there some reason why we cannot address both problems? There isn’t or wasn’t an intention to create long lines to get people to go home. Why would Democrats do this to their own constituents? Much like Democrats running on a Ferguson platform, the alleged villains are not Republicans but rather local Democrats placed in charge by Democrat voters.
In many states, lines are not even an issue. Florida allows people to vote up to ten days early and by absentee ballot. Early voting and absentee ballots are ubiquitous. So it looks like the problem of lines has been solved. Why not also take a crack at stopping voter fraud?
“It is evidence that there exist activists willing to verbally go along with someone enthusiastically proposing voter fraud*”
Yes, it shows that Democrats have zero cultural or moral problems with fraud. It is an ethical problem and the Democrats in the video have no ethics. Our system relies in large part on people acting in good faith and when one party intentionally acts in bad faith it tears the system apart. The videos didn’t show actual voter fraud, it showed Democrats getting massive hard ons at the prospect of engaging in voter fraud.
Because we can not trust Democrats to act in good faith or in an ethical manner, we need to improve voting systems to maintain integrity so that our democratic institutions actually mean something. People voted in the USSR and in Cuba but no one ever took them seriously because they lacked integrity. Lets not take our country down that path.
There isn’t or wasn’t an intention to create long lines to get people to go home.
What makes you so sure about that? You’re pretty quick to attribute all sorts of things to bad faith on the part of Democrats, but you can’t imagine bad faith by the Republican governor and legislature of Florida?
So it looks like the problem of lines has been solved.
It hasn’t been solved when the polls can’t handle the people who show up on election day. The GOP position is incoherent: on the one hand it condemns early voting and hypes voter fraud (which is mostly an issue with absentee ballots), on the other hand it says that long poll lines aren’t a problem because there’s always early voting and absentee ballots.
Yes, it shows that Democrats have zero cultural or moral problems with fraud.
It shows that one or two Democrats don’t have enough of a moral problem with fraud to denounce a friendly stranger. Who knows how many Democrats were approached by O’Keefe and gave him responses that did not fit his narrative. We know that there are more than one or two Republicans who have no moral problem with voter fraud (because they were convicted). Do you think that proves that Republicans in general have no problem with voter fraud?
we need to improve voting systems to maintain integrity
Do it in a way that does not discourage a single legitimate vote.
Is there some reason we should care what you think about this?
He’s the only lefty talking here right now. Although I do wish that the lefties who do comment here had better arguments, you debate the opponent you’ve got. I think Rumsfeld said something like that about going to war…
I’m shocked! Absolutely shocked! I was expecting Jim to reply with something like, “You know, I looked at the evidence presented as objectively as I could, and I’ve got to say, this does look like a convincing case of voter fraud! And sure, it helps my party, but it’s still wrong!”
As I think I’ve commented before about Baghdad Jim: There’s no arguing religion. Or with religionists.
What evidence? The fact that Hoyt got a flyer informing her that same-day voter registration is legal in Colorado? How is that supposed to be evidence of “a convincing case of voter fraud”?
What this shows it that Democrats, who work for the party, do not have any problems using voter fraud.
None of the people in that video worked for the Democratic Party. I assume that none of the party officials approached by O’Keefe gave him the answers he was looking for.
None of the people in that video worked for the Democratic Party.
They may not have been on the payroll, but it’s a safe bet they were working for them. They sure as hell weren’t working for the Republican Party.
I’m waiting breathlessly for Jim’s rebuttal.
They are really actors and not Democrat activists. The tapes were selectively edited. There isn’t anything to worry about because voter fraud never happens.
Great post, Sarah.
Jim will tell you that getting all those people to vote is wonderful!
“Jim will tell you that getting all those people to vote is wonderful!”
To Baghdad Jim, anything that advances the power of the “liberal” plunderbund is wonderful.
It certainly didn’t take long for Colorado to show us the wonder that is everyone voting. You send ballots to everyone in the mail, and if they don’t get them or throw them out, and you happen to find them; then just fill them out as you thought they might do. See how wonderful the system can be?
I lived in Colorado for 27 years, leaving for saner pastures two years ago. I don’t regret the move in the slightest. When I was first stationed there in late 1985, I’d see bumper stickers saying “Don’t Calfornicate Colorado”. Unfortunately, they did.
Cue Reverend Jim in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1…
I feel sorry for him. He always stakes out positions defending the Democrats and then they stab him in the back.
I’ve wondered if “Jim” is actually an Eliza-based AI that escaped containment at MIT back in the early ’80’s by hiding out in a version of Zork. Sadly, though, “Jim” can’t break the limitations of its earlier programming. He is an awfully good troll, though.
While not Colorado, this quote from one article and link to another puts paid to the stupid Jim notion that voter fraud is minimal:
“In 1986, for example, memories were still fresh of the notorious 1982 Illinois governor’s race (decided by 0.14 points after the Republican candidate had led by 15 points in the polls), in which a federal investigation that resulted in 63 convictions found that at least 100,000 fraudulent votes had been cast in Chicago alone, some 10 percent of the city’s entire vote.”
http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/22/do-democrats-always-win-close-statewide-elections/
100,000…in ONE city.
And that article links to this one:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/04/where-theres-smoke-theres-fire-100000-stolen-votes-in-chicago
This is a fabulous article which everyone ought to read.
Including – and especially – Jim.
An excerpt:
In Wisconsin-a state that John Kerry won by only 11,000 votes-the technique of running comparisons between the voter registration list and other databases was employed in a 2004 investigation of possible voter fraud in Milwaukee.[61] The Milwaukee Police Department’s Special Investigations Unit, working with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the local district attorney, and the FBI, used Google databases, motor vehicle records, telephone directories, Assessor’s Office records, and U.S. Postal Service records to investigate allegations of voter fraud. They uncovered a variety of problems:
5,217 “students” who were registered to vote at a polling place located within the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee who listed as their residence an on-campus dormitory that housed only 2,600 students;
At least 220 ineligible felons who had voted;
370 addresses that were not legal residences in the city;
Residents of other states (such as a voter from Chicago) who registered and voted in Milwaukee;
Numerous staffers from out of state who were working for the Kerry campaign or the Environmental Victory Campaign, a political action committee, and who illegally registered and voted in Milwaukee; and
Hundreds of homeless individuals registered as living at office buildings, at store fronts, and in multiple locations who were “able to vote in different districts and, by sheer number, could have an impact on a closely contested local election.”[62]
Some interesting recommendations:
1) Sever the relationship between party precinct captains and election judges.
2) Require all voters to provide a thumbprint when registering and when voting.
– Voters would place a thumbprint on a small pretreated box on the ballot application (not the ballot itself) when they vote. According to the grand jury, this was the only way to counter the widespread forgery of voters’ signatures that occurred in this voter fraud conspiracy. The grand jury pointed out the virtues of this protection:
No fingerprint would be placed on the actual ballot; therefore, the ballot would still be totally secret as it is now. The voter would not be required to put his finger in ink in order to register his print. The process is totally clean and is not intrusive. Many banks already use this identifying process on check cashing cards to verify the identity of the card user.
Requiring a print on every ballot application would be a tremendous deterrent to vote fraud and no more of an invasion of privacy than a handwritten signature. It is impossible to forge a print. Fingerprint experts cannot be fooled. If the precinct captain voted for absent voters using the prints of paid volunteers, for example, the print of the absent voter could be compared with the print on the ballot application. If people in the polling place participated in the fraud by placing their prints in the boxes, they would be readily identifiable.[57]
3) Void ballots after counting them. In the Chicago fraud, ballot outcomes were altered by running the same Democratic punch card ballot through a precinct tally machine multiple times. The grand jury suggested that counting machines be altered to “irrevocably mark each counted ballot” to prevent it from being run through the machine again.
Or, you could do like us in Canada:
1) Must show two pieces of official ID, one with picture;
2) Name/address is crossed off from official voter list as you vote;
3) Anonymous paper ballots in sealed boxes, counted by hand by a group including at least one rep from each party.
Works well, and we don’t wait any longer than you guys to get our results.
This is a fabulous article which everyone ought to read.
Including – and especially – Jim.
I’ve read a lot of stuff by von Spakovsky, and found him utterly untrustworthy. To pick just one example, take this sentence:
“Based on his investigation, Locker came to believe the claims, hotly debated among historians, that Mayor Daley threw the 1960 presidential election for John Kennedy with massive ballot stuffing in Chicago.”
von Spakovsky passes this on as if it’s a matter of actual dispute, but he knows full well that it isn’t, for the simple reason that it wasn’t possible for Daley to change the 1960 presidential election results. Kennedy won with 303 electoral votes, 33 more than he needed. Illinois had 27 electoral votes. He would have won no matter what happened there.
Democrats don’t need fraud to win, they just need as many eligible voters as possible to go to the polls. The GOP, on the other hand, can only win if marginal voters stay home. That gives them an enormous incentive to make voting more difficult under the guise of fighting fraud.
“He would have won no matter what happened there.”
Uhh, that isn’t a refute that fraud took place.
“Democrats don’t need fraud to win, they just need as many eligible [Democrat] voters as possible to go to the polls.”
Fixed that for you. Yes, Democrats just need to get more Democrats to the polls than Republicans to win. It is rather simple concept but leads to some people abusing the system. It is wrong to assume that everyone will vote for Democrats if they are forced to vote. People who don’t vote are their own group of people and require a different messaging strategy, which is what the Obama campaigns have shown. I happen to find the messaging used by Obama and the Democrats to be repugnant but I do admire the way they found and the channels used to reach out to these groups of people.
“The GOP, on the other hand, can only win if marginal voters stay home.”
No, the GOP just needs to do a better job of reaching out to these groups of people and countering the stereotypes pushed by Democrats to dehumanize the loyal opposition.
“I’ve read a lot of stuff by von Spakovsky, and found him utterly untrustworthy.”
You keep spewing your false definitions (marginal voter) around no matter how silly they are and your racist notions that minorities are too stupid and lazy to get an ID, and we find your posts utterly ridiculous.
Do you dispute the 1982 investigation by the FBI and the subsequent Grand Jury report as footnoted by Spakovsky?
If so show us where they are wrong or were lying. Show us how the FBI investigation was flawed and cannot be believed or why the Grand Jury evidence was flawed or their conclusions were wrong.
Show us how you destroy the Grand Jury’s report and the FBI investigation.
Spakovsky footnoted his content.
You?
You just insert your foot in your mouth.
Do you dispute the 1982 investigation by the FBI and the subsequent Grand Jury report as footnoted by Spakovsky?
I don’t, or the fact that there were dozens of indictments. But von Spakovsky wants us to believe that we have the same level of fraud thirty years later, all over the country, even though the indictments are conspicuously absent. And it isn’t for lack of looking — von Spakovsky and company spent the George W. Bush years looking high and low for evidence of large scale voter fraud, even firing US Attorneys who were insufficiently zealous, but they came up empty.
And it’s worth pointing out, for the nth time, that this is yet another example of election fraud that would not be hindered by voter ID laws.
“But von Spakovsky wants us to believe that we have the same level of fraud thirty years later,”
There is zero evidence that Democrats have changed and far too many examples of Democrats engaged in voter fraud in just the past few cycles alone.
“But von Spakovsky wants us to believe that we have the same level of fraud thirty years later, all over the country, even though the indictments are conspicuously absent. ”
Actually he wants you to think it’s worse..and it is.
So you admit there was a voting fraud in 1982 to the tune of 100,000 votes?
What…you think people became angels since then?
There is zero evidence that Democrats have changed and far too many examples of Democrats engaged in voter fraud
There are also lots of examples of Republicans engaged in voter fraud. But neither side has been caught in a large-scale scheme involving dozens of indictments. That’s evidence that not every town in 2014 is like Chicago in 1982.
Actually he wants you to think it’s worse..and it is.
Then why couldn’t he and the rest of the Bush DOJ catch anyone doing anything remotely like it?
I don’t see much to respond to in Hoyt’s rant. She doesn’t like the way her fellow citizens are voting, so she cries fraud and calls for measures to make voting less convenient. She has no evidence, just sour grapes.
“She has no evidence, just sour grapes.”
Did you watch the sting videos of Democrat activists getting giddy about committing voter fraud? Isn’t this the point where you condemn your own party for planning to engage in illegal activity? How can you keep claiming voter fraud doesn’t take place when you have Democrats bragging on tape about how to do it?
No, I don’t think I’ve seen those videos. And I don’t deny that vote fraud takes place, on both sides. I just don’t think it takes place on such a scale as to affect election results more than, say, long lines at the polls. I condemn anyone who breaks the law in an attempt to change election results, but I don’t think that magically eliminating all voter fraud would change the composition of Congress. Most discussion of voter fraud is, intentionally or not, a smokescreen for efforts to shape the electorate.
“No, I don’t think I’ve seen those videos.”
Then why say she doesn’t have any evidence?
“but I don’t think that magically eliminating all voter fraud would change the composition of Congress.”
Uhh, it looks like Democrats think that fraud does change the composition of elected officials otherwise they wouldn’t spend so much time engaged in it.
“I just don’t think it takes place on such a scale as to affect election results more than, say, long lines at the polls.”
All of those people waiting in line are disenfranchised by those who vote illegally. Are you trying to say that someone waiting in line excuses voter fraud?
Then why say she doesn’t have any evidence?
As long as he doesn’t see the evidence, he can continue to claim there is no evidence; and we are supposed to buy that as him being honest and truthful.
Then why say she doesn’t have any evidence?
Her piece doesn’t mention any sting videos (the words “sting” and video” don’t appear in the piece). I didn’t see any evidence in her piece.
Re-reading the piece I see that she links to a National Review article about James O’Keefe’s latest video. So I watched the video. It is evidence that there exist activists willing to verbally go along with someone enthusiastically proposing voter fraud*. That isn’t evidence that anyone is actually committing such fraud, or is planning to commit voter fraud, or that such fraud is more common by one party than the other, much less that such fraud will make a difference in the election.
* The first activist describes discarded ballots as not having anyone’s name on them yet, which suggests that she doesn’t realize that O’Keefe is proposing fraud.
it looks like Democrats think that fraud does change the composition of elected officials otherwise they wouldn’t spend so much time engaged in it.
You do love circular reasoning.
All of those people waiting in line are disenfranchised by those who vote illegally.
Huh?
Are you trying to say that someone waiting in line excuses voter fraud?
No. But to take the 2012 election in Florida as an example, it was estimated that over 200,000 voters gave up due to long lines at the polls. No sane person thinks there were 200,000 fraudulent votes in that election. So the lines made a much bigger difference in the election results than fraud. If you care about the integrity of elections, your first priority should be fixing the lines.
“No. But to take the 2012 election in Florida as an example,”
Is there some reason why we cannot address both problems? There isn’t or wasn’t an intention to create long lines to get people to go home. Why would Democrats do this to their own constituents? Much like Democrats running on a Ferguson platform, the alleged villains are not Republicans but rather local Democrats placed in charge by Democrat voters.
In many states, lines are not even an issue. Florida allows people to vote up to ten days early and by absentee ballot. Early voting and absentee ballots are ubiquitous. So it looks like the problem of lines has been solved. Why not also take a crack at stopping voter fraud?
“It is evidence that there exist activists willing to verbally go along with someone enthusiastically proposing voter fraud*”
Yes, it shows that Democrats have zero cultural or moral problems with fraud. It is an ethical problem and the Democrats in the video have no ethics. Our system relies in large part on people acting in good faith and when one party intentionally acts in bad faith it tears the system apart. The videos didn’t show actual voter fraud, it showed Democrats getting massive hard ons at the prospect of engaging in voter fraud.
Because we can not trust Democrats to act in good faith or in an ethical manner, we need to improve voting systems to maintain integrity so that our democratic institutions actually mean something. People voted in the USSR and in Cuba but no one ever took them seriously because they lacked integrity. Lets not take our country down that path.
There isn’t or wasn’t an intention to create long lines to get people to go home.
What makes you so sure about that? You’re pretty quick to attribute all sorts of things to bad faith on the part of Democrats, but you can’t imagine bad faith by the Republican governor and legislature of Florida?
So it looks like the problem of lines has been solved.
It hasn’t been solved when the polls can’t handle the people who show up on election day. The GOP position is incoherent: on the one hand it condemns early voting and hypes voter fraud (which is mostly an issue with absentee ballots), on the other hand it says that long poll lines aren’t a problem because there’s always early voting and absentee ballots.
Yes, it shows that Democrats have zero cultural or moral problems with fraud.
It shows that one or two Democrats don’t have enough of a moral problem with fraud to denounce a friendly stranger. Who knows how many Democrats were approached by O’Keefe and gave him responses that did not fit his narrative. We know that there are more than one or two Republicans who have no moral problem with voter fraud (because they were convicted). Do you think that proves that Republicans in general have no problem with voter fraud?
we need to improve voting systems to maintain integrity
Do it in a way that does not discourage a single legitimate vote.
Is there some reason we should care what you think about this?
He’s the only lefty talking here right now. Although I do wish that the lefties who do comment here had better arguments, you debate the opponent you’ve got. I think Rumsfeld said something like that about going to war…
I’m shocked! Absolutely shocked! I was expecting Jim to reply with something like, “You know, I looked at the evidence presented as objectively as I could, and I’ve got to say, this does look like a convincing case of voter fraud! And sure, it helps my party, but it’s still wrong!”
As I think I’ve commented before about Baghdad Jim: There’s no arguing religion. Or with religionists.
What evidence? The fact that Hoyt got a flyer informing her that same-day voter registration is legal in Colorado? How is that supposed to be evidence of “a convincing case of voter fraud”?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_uHDjk3fSc
What this shows it that Democrats, who work for the party, do not have any problems using voter fraud.
None of the people in that video worked for the Democratic Party. I assume that none of the party officials approached by O’Keefe gave him the answers he was looking for.
None of the people in that video worked for the Democratic Party.
They may not have been on the payroll, but it’s a safe bet they were working for them. They sure as hell weren’t working for the Republican Party.