Check out topic: Golden Oldie: Al Gore's Polar Ice Cap Prediction
Do You Think The White House Will Obstruct Election Results If The GOP Loses The House Or Senate?
Oct 25, 2018 15:53:27 #
The GOP wanted nothing to do with recounts and challenges to key races in 2016, yet Trump had actually made it very clear that he was set to challenge election results as hard as possible if he lost, and considering the house and senate were controlled by the GOP any number of ridiculous premises could have been run. In fact they could have initiated impeachment processes from day one, which they also made clear they were set to do.
I don't put anything past this administration. The GOP would have the ability to call for any kind of investigation they can cook up, and say that until things are settled it was an illegitimate election. Legal challenges could be put before the supreme court just like they were with Gore and they could decide key races.
I'm of the opinion that with this current GOP winning the election as far as the balance of the house is the first hurdle, with more to come. I also think even some republicans would admit that there are red states that have a hard to break control of the whole election process including counts that they will refuse to allow recounts.
I don't put anything past this administration. The GOP would have the ability to call for any kind of investigation they can cook up, and say that until things are settled it was an illegitimate election. Legal challenges could be put before the supreme court just like they were with Gore and they could decide key races.
I'm of the opinion that with this current GOP winning the election as far as the balance of the house is the first hurdle, with more to come. I also think even some republicans would admit that there are red states that have a hard to break control of the whole election process including counts that they will refuse to allow recounts.
Oct 25, 2018 16:41:00 #
slatten49
Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas
Seems a good place to insert this...
THE MISLEADING MYTH OF VOTER FRAUD IN AMERICAN ELECTIONS
by Lorraine C. Minnite, Rutgers University-Camden
Are fraudulent voters undermining U.S. elections? The simple answer is no. Rather, the threat comes from the myth of voter fraud used to justify rules that restrict full and equal voting rights.
A concerted partisan campaign to erect more restrictive voting rules is apace in many states, with Republicans pushing new limits on access and Democrats objecting. Thousands of changes to state election codes have been proposed since the contested presidential election of 2000. Far fewer have been signed into law, but those put in place – such as rules that people have a certain kind of photo identification card available from specific government offices – are making it more difficult for many citizens to cast ballots, including longtime voters as well as new ones. In a democracy, reducing access to the ballot is difficult to justify. Political motives and strategies to discourage voting by particular groups such as racial minorities cannot be openly announced. That’s where the myth of criminal voters comes in – as proponents of new rules cite the supposed threat of votes fraudulently cast by foreigners, noncitizens, immigrants, felons, and imposters who supposedly travel around to vote in many precincts. Mythical threats that stoke social prejudices are used to make new restrictions seem reasonable.
The earliest reliable studies of election fraud in the 1920s and 1930s found that individual voters almost never committed fraud on their own. Conspiracies by politicians or election officials were behind most violations. Voter registration laws were put in place to reduce such organized fraud.
Today, social scientific research on fraud is difficult because there are no officially compiled national or state statistics. Researchers must painstakingly piece together evidence from news reports, court proceedings, law enforcement agencies, election officials, and interviews with
experts and other sources. After ten years of such research, I found that intentional fraud by individual voters is exceedingly rare. Other investigations have reached the same conclusion. Replicating my methodology, 24 journalism students at twelve universities reviewed some 2,000 public records and identified just six cases of voter impersonation between 2000 and 2012.
Under Republican President George W. Bush, the U.S. Justice Department searched for voter fraud. But in the first three years of the program, just 26 people were convicted or pled guilty to illegal registration or voting. Out of 197,056,035 votes cast in the two federal elections held during that period, the rate of voter fraud was a miniscule 0.00000132%!
Also: Lorraine C. Minnite, The Myth of Voter Fraud (Cornell University Press, 2010). www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org
No state considering or passing restrictive voter identification laws has documented an actual problem with voter fraud. In litigation over the new voter identification laws in Wisconsin, Indiana, Georgia and Pennsylvania, election officials testified they have never seen cases of voter impersonation at the polls. Indiana and Pennsylvania stipulated in court that they had experienced zero instances of voter fraud. When federal authorities challenged voter identification laws in South Carolina and Texas, neither state provided any evidence of voter impersonation or any other type of fraud that could be deterred by requiring voters to present photo identification at the polls. When voter fraud accusations are tracked down to their specifics, irregularities almost always turn out to be simple mistakes by election officials or voters.
In the contested 2004 Washington state gubernatorial election, a Superior Court judge ruled invalid just 25 ballots, constituting 0.0009 percent of the 2,812,675 cast. Many were absentee ballots mailed as double votes or in the names of deceased people, but the judge did not find all were fraudulently cast. When King County prosecutors charged seven defendants, the lawyer for one 83-year old woman said his client “simply did not know what to do with the absentee ballot after her husband of 63 years, Earl, passed away” just before the election, so she signed his name and mailed the ballot. A leaked report from the Milwaukee Police Department found that data entry errors, typographical errors, procedural missteps, misapplication of the rules, and the like accounted for almost all reported problems during the 2004 presidential election. When the South Carolina State Election Commission investigated a list of 207 allegedly fraudulent votes in the 2010 election, it found simple human errors in 95 percent of the cases the state’s highest law enforcement official had reported as fraud. A study by the Northeast Ohio Media Group of 625 reported voting irregularities in Ohio during the 2012 election found that nearly all cases forwarded to county prosecutors were caused by voter confusion or errors by poll workers.
Voters acting on their own have no rational cause to vote fraudulently. The odds of casting a deciding vote are miniscule and cheaters risk criminal prosecution under state laws on the books for decades. The costs of fraudulent voting are steep and the benefits practically non-existent. Spurious, politically-motivated allegations of voter fraud are a distraction from the real problems in U.S. elections. Overly complicated rules need to be simplified and election administration professionalized. Nonpartisan officials and poll workers must be well-trained and supported in their efforts to help people cast ballots that are accurately counted. In every major election, millions of eligible Americans do not participate, in large part because of unnecessary hurdles to registration and voting. The United States needs a reinvigorated movement to expand voting rights and access. To build confidence in our democracy, we should look for ways to fix actual election problems – and recognize that individual voter fraud is not one of them.
THE MISLEADING MYTH OF VOTER FRAUD IN AMERICAN ELECTIONS
by Lorraine C. Minnite, Rutgers University-Camden
Are fraudulent voters undermining U.S. elections? The simple answer is no. Rather, the threat comes from the myth of voter fraud used to justify rules that restrict full and equal voting rights.
A concerted partisan campaign to erect more restrictive voting rules is apace in many states, with Republicans pushing new limits on access and Democrats objecting. Thousands of changes to state election codes have been proposed since the contested presidential election of 2000. Far fewer have been signed into law, but those put in place – such as rules that people have a certain kind of photo identification card available from specific government offices – are making it more difficult for many citizens to cast ballots, including longtime voters as well as new ones. In a democracy, reducing access to the ballot is difficult to justify. Political motives and strategies to discourage voting by particular groups such as racial minorities cannot be openly announced. That’s where the myth of criminal voters comes in – as proponents of new rules cite the supposed threat of votes fraudulently cast by foreigners, noncitizens, immigrants, felons, and imposters who supposedly travel around to vote in many precincts. Mythical threats that stoke social prejudices are used to make new restrictions seem reasonable.
The earliest reliable studies of election fraud in the 1920s and 1930s found that individual voters almost never committed fraud on their own. Conspiracies by politicians or election officials were behind most violations. Voter registration laws were put in place to reduce such organized fraud.
Today, social scientific research on fraud is difficult because there are no officially compiled national or state statistics. Researchers must painstakingly piece together evidence from news reports, court proceedings, law enforcement agencies, election officials, and interviews with
experts and other sources. After ten years of such research, I found that intentional fraud by individual voters is exceedingly rare. Other investigations have reached the same conclusion. Replicating my methodology, 24 journalism students at twelve universities reviewed some 2,000 public records and identified just six cases of voter impersonation between 2000 and 2012.
Under Republican President George W. Bush, the U.S. Justice Department searched for voter fraud. But in the first three years of the program, just 26 people were convicted or pled guilty to illegal registration or voting. Out of 197,056,035 votes cast in the two federal elections held during that period, the rate of voter fraud was a miniscule 0.00000132%!
Also: Lorraine C. Minnite, The Myth of Voter Fraud (Cornell University Press, 2010). www.scholarsstrategynetwork.org
No state considering or passing restrictive voter identification laws has documented an actual problem with voter fraud. In litigation over the new voter identification laws in Wisconsin, Indiana, Georgia and Pennsylvania, election officials testified they have never seen cases of voter impersonation at the polls. Indiana and Pennsylvania stipulated in court that they had experienced zero instances of voter fraud. When federal authorities challenged voter identification laws in South Carolina and Texas, neither state provided any evidence of voter impersonation or any other type of fraud that could be deterred by requiring voters to present photo identification at the polls. When voter fraud accusations are tracked down to their specifics, irregularities almost always turn out to be simple mistakes by election officials or voters.
In the contested 2004 Washington state gubernatorial election, a Superior Court judge ruled invalid just 25 ballots, constituting 0.0009 percent of the 2,812,675 cast. Many were absentee ballots mailed as double votes or in the names of deceased people, but the judge did not find all were fraudulently cast. When King County prosecutors charged seven defendants, the lawyer for one 83-year old woman said his client “simply did not know what to do with the absentee ballot after her husband of 63 years, Earl, passed away” just before the election, so she signed his name and mailed the ballot. A leaked report from the Milwaukee Police Department found that data entry errors, typographical errors, procedural missteps, misapplication of the rules, and the like accounted for almost all reported problems during the 2004 presidential election. When the South Carolina State Election Commission investigated a list of 207 allegedly fraudulent votes in the 2010 election, it found simple human errors in 95 percent of the cases the state’s highest law enforcement official had reported as fraud. A study by the Northeast Ohio Media Group of 625 reported voting irregularities in Ohio during the 2012 election found that nearly all cases forwarded to county prosecutors were caused by voter confusion or errors by poll workers.
Voters acting on their own have no rational cause to vote fraudulently. The odds of casting a deciding vote are miniscule and cheaters risk criminal prosecution under state laws on the books for decades. The costs of fraudulent voting are steep and the benefits practically non-existent. Spurious, politically-motivated allegations of voter fraud are a distraction from the real problems in U.S. elections. Overly complicated rules need to be simplified and election administration professionalized. Nonpartisan officials and poll workers must be well-trained and supported in their efforts to help people cast ballots that are accurately counted. In every major election, millions of eligible Americans do not participate, in large part because of unnecessary hurdles to registration and voting. The United States needs a reinvigorated movement to expand voting rights and access. To build confidence in our democracy, we should look for ways to fix actual election problems – and recognize that individual voter fraud is not one of them.
Oct 25, 2018 16:56:36 #
Coos Bay Tom
Loc: coos bay oregon
Every State should be like Oregon. You are automatically registered to vote the day you turn 18. You complete the process by deciding your party affiliation. Your ballot is mailed to you a few weeks ahead of time and you mail it back in to your county elections office or drop it off at a library or police station.. You vote or you don't. It can't be messed with like a computer ballot can and it is verified by your signature.. No fraud here. Nobody is screwed out of their right to vote. As far as Trump trying to challenge everything you can count on it. He is petty and diseased with power.
Check out topic: FREEDOM ‘SPLINTERING BABYLON’ – CONCEPT VIDEOS
Oct 25, 2018 17:06:53 #
maybe we need to do away with the parties all together let each man come forward in an election and tell us what he stands for not what he thinks we want to here!
We need to dry up the dark money in elections
We need to dry up the dark money in elections
Oct 26, 2018 01:59:23 #
Coos Bay Tom
Loc: coos bay oregon
Lonewolf wrote:
right onmaybe we need to do away with the parties all together let each man come forward in an election and tell us what he stands for not what he thinks we want to here!
We need to dry up the dark money in elections
We need to dry up the dark money in elections
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.