One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
Would You Consider Ghost Candidates To Be A Form Of Election Fraud?
May 24, 2022 17:14:51   #
woodguru
 
Forget who did what, this is about whether an election act crosses into lines of election fraud that are illegal...

We are talking about intentionally using a strategy that has only one purpose, and that is to run someone as a spoiler for the opposing party. A party sees a scary close race, and sends someone into the election for the sole purpose of appealing to the opposition so as to draw a few percentage points away from the threat, thereby handing the one that engineered this dilution a win they might not have had with those votes.

I can see defense here in the respect that how can it be proved that this was the only goal, we can't be thought police and say that the person didn't intend to win, right?

But then let's say there is proof...is this okay?

A political group with deep pockets pays a person that would make the right degree of spoiler votes effective...they lay out a platform designed to appeal to the same people the spoiler is targeted at...they provide the messaging and funds for a viable campaign...in other words the proof is there in spades.

Is this wrong?

We had a case of just that in Florida, a person being paid $50k simply to run against a targeted candidate simply to siphon off a few votes...those involved are being prosecuted...and it seems like the party of election fraud outrage should be all up in arms about this, but they won't.

It shouldn't matter whether dems did this or republicans did this, your reaction should be the same, and if you think dems should be prosecuted you should be exactly the same on that if it was republicans.

Reply
May 24, 2022 17:31:16   #
RascalRiley Loc: Canada
 
woodguru wrote:
Forget who did what, this is about whether an election act crosses into lines of election fraud that are illegal...

We are talking about intentionally using a strategy that has only one purpose, and that is to run someone as a spoiler for the opposing party. A party sees a scary close race, and sends someone into the election for the sole purpose of appealing to the opposition so as to draw a few percentage points away from the threat, thereby handing the one that engineered this dilution a win they might not have had with those votes.

I can see defense here in the respect that how can it be proved that this was the only goal, we can't be thought police and say that the person didn't intend to win, right?

But then let's say there is proof...is this okay?

A political group with deep pockets pays a person that would make the right degree of spoiler votes effective...they lay out a platform designed to appeal to the same people the spoiler is targeted at...they provide the messaging and funds for a viable campaign...in other words the proof is there in spades.

Is this wrong?

We had a case of just that in Florida, a person being paid $50k simply to run against a targeted candidate simply to siphon off a few votes...those involved are being prosecuted...and it seems like the party of election fraud outrage should be all up in arms about this, but they won't.

It shouldn't matter whether dems did this or republicans did this, your reaction should be the same, and if you think dems should be prosecuted you should be exactly the same on that if it was republicans.
Forget who did what, this is about whether an elec... (show quote)

It ok if republicans do. And in a state controlled by a future president.

Reply
May 24, 2022 18:09:59   #
Gatsby
 
woodguru wrote:
Forget who did what, this is about whether an election act crosses into lines of election fraud that are illegal...

We are talking about intentionally using a strategy that has only one purpose, and that is to run someone as a spoiler for the opposing party. A party sees a scary close race, and sends someone into the election for the sole purpose of appealing to the opposition so as to draw a few percentage points away from the threat, thereby handing the one that engineered this dilution a win they might not have had with those votes.

I can see defense here in the respect that how can it be proved that this was the only goal, we can't be thought police and say that the person didn't intend to win, right?

But then let's say there is proof...is this okay?

A political group with deep pockets pays a person that would make the right degree of spoiler votes effective...they lay out a platform designed to appeal to the same people the spoiler is targeted at...they provide the messaging and funds for a viable campaign...in other words the proof is there in spades.

Is this wrong?

We had a case of just that in Florida, a person being paid $50k simply to run against a targeted candidate simply to siphon off a few votes...those involved are being prosecuted...and it seems like the party of election fraud outrage should be all up in arms about this, but they won't.

It shouldn't matter whether dems did this or republicans did this, your reaction should be the same, and if you think dems should be prosecuted you should be exactly the same on that if it was republicans.
Forget who did what, this is about whether an elec... (show quote)


You claim that people are being prosecuted, but you don't say what they are charged with, why?

Reply
May 24, 2022 18:21:06   #
LogicallyRight Loc: Chicago
 
woodguru wrote:
Forget who did what, this is about whether an election act crosses into lines of election fraud that are illegal...

We are talking about intentionally using a strategy that has only one purpose, and that is to run someone as a spoiler for the opposing party. A party sees a scary close race, and sends someone into the election for the sole purpose of appealing to the opposition so as to draw a few percentage points away from the threat, thereby handing the one that engineered this dilution a win they might not have had with those votes.

I can see defense here in the respect that how can it be proved that this was the only goal, we can't be thought police and say that the person didn't intend to win, right?

But then let's say there is proof...is this okay?

A political group with deep pockets pays a person that would make the right degree of spoiler votes effective...they lay out a platform designed to appeal to the same people the spoiler is targeted at...they provide the messaging and funds for a viable campaign...in other words the proof is there in spades.

Is this wrong?

We had a case of just that in Florida, a person being paid $50k simply to run against a targeted candidate simply to siphon off a few votes...those involved are being prosecuted...and it seems like the party of election fraud outrage should be all up in arms about this, but they won't.

It shouldn't matter whether dems did this or republicans did this, your reaction should be the same, and if you think dems should be prosecuted you should be exactly the same on that if it was republicans.
Forget who did what, this is about whether an elec... (show quote)


Yes, it is election fraud. Democrats in Illinois have perfected it.

Reply
May 24, 2022 18:30:37   #
American Vet
 
RascalRiley wrote:
It ok if republicans do. And in a state controlled by a future president.


Hypocritical comment from an ignorant ELWNJ.

Reply
May 24, 2022 18:49:43   #
RascalRiley Loc: Canada
 
LogicallyRight wrote:
Yes, it is election fraud. Democrats in Illinois have perfected it.

If I had said that about republicans the republicans on OPP would be demanding proof from a right wing source.

I am not so naive as to think that democrats are not as corrupt as republicans.

Own it for once. Republicans rig elections.

Reply
May 24, 2022 19:40:38   #
American Vet
 
RascalRiley wrote:
If I had said that about republicans the republicans on OPP would be demanding proof from a right wing source.

I am not so naive as to think that democrats are not as corrupt as republicans.

Own it for once. Republicans rig elections.


Ah, but you single out Republicans....hypocrisy runs deep in you - own it for once.

Reply
May 24, 2022 20:05:04   #
RascalRiley Loc: Canada
 
American Vet wrote:
Ah, but you single out Republicans....hypocrisy runs deep in you - own it for once.


Vet, you are beyond my scope of reasoning.

Reply
May 24, 2022 21:14:07   #
American Vet
 
RascalRiley wrote:
Vet, you are beyond my scope of reasoning.


Don’t blame me for your limited abilities and shortcomings.

Reply
May 24, 2022 21:40:13   #
RascalRiley Loc: Canada
 
American Vet wrote:
Don’t blame me for your limited abilities and shortcomings.
I do not. I am ADHD. I enjoy a more wondering why point of view. Nothing is forever

Reply
May 25, 2022 06:16:34   #
rjoeholl
 
RascalRiley wrote:
I do not. I am ADHD. I enjoy a more wondering why point of view. Nothing is forever


Damn it! My wife just won our bet. I thought you were just dumb, not mental.

Reply
May 25, 2022 08:29:38   #
American Vet
 
rjoeholl wrote:
Damn it! My wife just won our bet. I thought you were just dumb, not mental.



Reply
May 25, 2022 14:27:35   #
MidnightRider
 
woodguru wrote:
Forget who did what, this is about whether an election act crosses into lines of election fraud that are illegal...

We are talking about intentionally using a strategy that has only one purpose, and that is to run someone as a spoiler for the opposing party. A party sees a scary close race, and sends someone into the election for the sole purpose of appealing to the opposition so as to draw a few percentage points away from the threat, thereby handing the one that engineered this dilution a win they might not have had with those votes.

I can see defense here in the respect that how can it be proved that this was the only goal, we can't be thought police and say that the person didn't intend to win, right?

But then let's say there is proof...is this okay?

A political group with deep pockets pays a person that would make the right degree of spoiler votes effective...they lay out a platform designed to appeal to the same people the spoiler is targeted at...they provide the messaging and funds for a viable campaign...in other words the proof is there in spades.

Is this wrong?

We had a case of just that in Florida, a person being paid $50k simply to run against a targeted candidate simply to siphon off a few votes...those involved are being prosecuted...and it seems like the party of election fraud outrage should be all up in arms about this, but they won't.

It shouldn't matter whether dems did this or republicans did this, your reaction should be the same, and if you think dems should be prosecuted you should be exactly the same on that if it was republicans.
Forget who did what, this is about whether an elec... (show quote)


Sounds a little tin foil. Not out of the realm of happening AT ALL. You're right, party doesn't matter, but if you made it clearer it would help.

Reply
May 25, 2022 14:49:12   #
woodguru
 
LogicallyRight wrote:
Yes, it is election fraud. Democrats in Illinois have perfected it.

Yeah it's all dems perfecting it...and you never did say anything about this case, that happens to be the right.

https://www.rawstory.com/gretchen-whitmer-reelection/?cx_testId=4&cx_testVariant=cx_undefined&cx_artPos=9&cx_experienceId=EXC93HV4HK4I#cxrecs_s

Reply
May 25, 2022 14:50:45   #
woodguru
 
MidnightRider wrote:
Sounds a little tin foil. Not out of the realm of happening AT ALL. You're right, party doesn't matter, but if you made it clearer it would help.

This quoted a big Florida paper, but you have to pay to see their articles. And by the way this case has been getting a lot of coverage, but the indictments are new, it's been under investigation by prosecutors.

https://www.rawstory.com/florida-ghost-candidate-is-arrested-and-charged/?utm_source=push_notifications

Reply
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2022 IDF International Technologies, Inc.