Every election we lose is not because of fraud!

[Logical]

Sometimes we just lose!

People should worry WAY more about citizen united than they do crooked elections!

[EFerrari]

1. Great. Could you please show your proof?

Thanks.

[Logical]

6. The proof is on the voter fraud believers, not me! Prove fraud in Wisconsin!

[EFerrari]

8. Not really. Before you ask anyone to prove there was fraud

you need to show that you know why the result is valid. If you can show that, then no one else should have anything to worry about.

Since you have so much confidence in the results, I expect you can show why you do.

[GarroHorus]

14. Wow, that's the same logic the Birthers use

Show me the long form ballots!!!!

[EFerrari]

16. No. Birthers reject the state certified proof of live birth.

I am asking for the same proof. Show me the votes.

Can you? And if you can't, how do you know the result?

[GarroHorus]

17. And you are rejecting the state certified election results.

Edited to add that the state certified election results in Wisconsin will be certified by Doug La Follette, a Democrat.

[EFerrari]

44. Hoisted by your own bad comparison.

When Hawaii certifies the live birth, they have records and a doc's signature. They have a chain of custody.

What exactly will La Follette certify? A machine printout?

Please.

[GarroHorus]

46. Optiscan ballots exist with a chain of custody

Please, take off your tinfoil. You are sugesting a massive statewide conspiracy here. It's ridiculous.

[EFerrari]

98. Chain of custody broken in Ohio in 2004, in San Diego in 2006, in New Hampshire in 2008,

A chain of custody is only valuable if it is intact.

Do you know the status of the chain of custody for the ballots in WI?

[truedelphi]

47. I think that E Ferrarai's query is a valid one.

I do know that when there is a significant statistical difference between the exit polling numbers and the actual election results, there is a huge problem relating to fraud.

And in Wisconsin, the exit polling showed there would be only a small margin of difference between the two candidates. While the result differed from that by quite a huge difference.

[HubertHeaver]

49. In the same way that innocence is assumed in a court of law,

election integrity is assumed. The burden of proof is placed squarely in the shoulders of the accuser. If you have evidence of fraud, bring it. And that evidence has to be more substantial than "the election turned out different than me and my friends wanted it to."

[EFerrari]

51. You are comparing apples and hub caps.

And I have a long history of questioning hidden election results that has nothing to do with my preferred result, thanks.

Tell you what. I will work the cash register in your store. You leave 200. in the drawer and when you get back, I'll make sure there will be 200. in there. What happens over the course of my shift, well, just trust me. I'll drop it in the safe and the bank will record it.

Okay?

[apocalypsehow]

53. No, he is not: you simply do not have the proof to offer that has been requested of you repeatedly.

So what we get instead is post like yours here, that spins absurd, fictional scenarios and pretends it's "proven" something.

[SGMRTDARMY]

65. the proof is that there is no proof.

[414]

121. This...and tinfoil hats...

[HubertHeaver]

78. Concerning this "long history of questioning hidden election results"

What is your methodology? How do you determine whether or not the posted election result is suspicious? Election fraud is a crime--a charge one should not throw around irresponsibly.

[EFerrari]

82. Wait, you and others on this thread are accepting a result reflexively because it was presented

to you by some media outlet but I am irresponsible because I am asking why you reflexively trust that result?

After all that effort to win this vote, the process by which the result is determined isn't even of the slightest interest to you?

[HubertHeaver]

119. Yes, we accept the result.

There are checks in place to prevent outright theft of the election such as poll watchers, election workers from both parties working the polls, secure ballot boxes, etc. It would take the cooperation (and continued silence) of a large number of people statewide for a theft to happen and not be found out.

However, the electronic voting machines are a new problem. Impulses go in, totals come out. Do they have any correlation to each other? (I do know a little about programming and how easily and invisibly counts can be altered) What validates the totals? How would one smoke out any malfeasance?

One method would be a carefully-designed random-selection opinion poll. In this case, it would have to be a statewide poll completed in a matter of a few days--five or less. The problem here is that Wisconsin is really a big village. Everybody knows or is related to everyone else. Word of a poll purporting to check accuracy of the result of the recent election would travel like the fire through Peshtigo. That word itself could skew the poll results.

Personally, I would like to see the follow-up survey done. Obtaining funding would be problematic due to the purely academic nature of the project. It could be viewed as an assault on the integrity of the machines themselves.

I have memory of the 1960 election in Illinois. Republicans were jumping up and down claiming the Mayor had robbed Nixon and a full recount needed to be done. In fact, a statewide random-sample recount was begun, and the vote totals did change. None of the changes (in the presidential race) were outside the margin of error. The RNC pulled the recount funding when it became apparent Illinois was not going to flip. And even if it had, the change in electoral vote total, 27 off Kennedy's >300 total and add to Nixon's total would not have brought Kennedy's total to < 269. Even without Illinois, Kennedy is still the winner.

[EFerrari]

132. Poll watchers can't watch the tabulation and they have no way to verify it

without doing a substantial audit after the election, which they do not do. I thought we established that already.

As far as Cook County goes, I tend to think Joe Kennedy did buy it. But it's been many years since I went over the specifics.

[HubertHeaver]

134. We are in agreement that the audit needs to be done.

The jumping-off-point of the audit is to assume the presented count is valid. The proofs you devise to show validity must be independent of the presented result--that is, you don't use the ballots to cast doubt. A carefully designed random telephone survey, or in-person interview with some predetermined number of randomly-selected voters in your targeted area would be a good start. If the independent research implies malfeasance then you can make a good case for a random spot-check of the actual ballots--a hand recount, not run them through he machine again.

These are baby-steps. They are necessary to create doubt in the public mind and give that doubt a firm ground.

[Bjorn Against]

54. This is not a criminal case, there is no innocent until proven guilty in transparency matters

No one is on trial for a crime, the question is not of guilt or innocence it is of government transparency. If there were actual transparency in the vote count then people would be more trusting of the results, the problem is that we have a system where we are simply handed the results and asked to believe them. Democracy is too important to simply trust what we are told, there needs to be an independent audit of every election and scans of the ballots should be public record so that anyone can go in at any time and verify the votes for themselves if they want to take the time to do so. It would still be a secret ballot so no one could tell who cast which vote, but we should at least be able to verify that if the ballot was checked for candidate A the vote was recorded for candidate A. The lack of transparency is an issue, we should not have to prove fraud in order to insist on a transparent system of elections.

[Scootaloo]

124. That's exactly right

We're not talking about accusing a possibly innocent person of a crime.

We're talking about ensuring that our civic functions remain transparent, legitimate, and secure.

if in the process of ensuring that, it seems fraud has been committed, then we talk about criminal cases.

[eridani]

126. That is utter tripe. The default position of any scientist or computer programmer

--is DISTRUST of every single piece of equipment. Everything in my old lab from a simple lab scale to the most complex quadrupole mass spectrometer was assumed to be possibly malfunctioning until daily controls were performed.

Only drooling Panglossians assert that if the machine said it, it must be true.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

102. There are right-wingers who think the results of the 2008 election were not valid.

Should we have to prove to them it was valid?

[EFerrari]

108. Why would anyone be against transparent elections?

You do think Obama won, don't you?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

138. Absolutely he did

What wasn't transparent about the 2008 election? By your arguments, shouldn't it have been stolen again?

[EFerrari]

141. What was transparent about the 2008 election?

Do you even remember that it took L.A. County, the one that determines the result in California, WEEKS to come up with a primary result? Or that New Hampshire had a recount -- a bad one, because the chain of custody was broken?

Why don't you do a search for problems in the primary vote and in the general election.

And apparently, you can't read my argument, which is simply that we shouldn't have to trust that our votes are counted accurately in secret.

[apocalypsehow]

52. I know you think this is a clever tactic, but, in fact, the burden of proof is on YOU and others

making claims that voter fraud was involved in this or any other election the outcomes of which you do not like.

In the real world, of course, you wouldn't try this blatant in-your-face "turn the tables on logic!" gambit, because you'd be laughed out of the room by any available grown-ups.

But here, on DU, with an anonymous moniker, I'm sure you've convinced yourself that it's some kind of clever, stinging repartee.

Pro-tip: it's not.

Now, if you have evidence of voter fraud in Wisconsin last night that led to this outcome, provide it. Don't start talking about "optical scans" and voting machines with minds of their own or who owns this or that company that makes the machines or any of that other wordy jazz you've littered up and down this thread, simply provide the proof.

Let's have it.

[Bjorn Against]

55. Why should the burden of proof be on us?

This is not a criminal case, this is about government transparency. No one is being tried for a crime people just want the government to show the way it operates in important public matters. There is no reason that elections should not be transparent, if there was a system in place to audit the votes people would be far less skeptical. We should not simply trust the words of the people who count the votes, we need insist that there is way to verify their count is accurate. Democracy is too important to simply take those who count the votes at their word.

[Chan790]

60. Because there is a presumption of legitimacy of elections...

doubly where there is a procedure (albeit one you don't like as "not transparent enough&quot to effect legitimate election results.

If you want to assert fraud the onus is on you to present proof of that fraud. It's a proof of assertion thing; because it's impossible to prove a negative (in this case the absence of fraud. Even verified paper-record voting is not and cannot be taken as proof of an absence of fraud.) it is upon you to prove your positive assertion of fraud.

To put it another way, assertion of variance from presumption of the continuation of the normative-state requires proof. Without proof, such assertion is baseless speculation. You're the one asserting something is out of sorts, that means you have to prove what you assert.

It's like huge numbers of DUers never read a basic logic and argumentation textbook.

[Bjorn Against]

71. I am not asserting anything, those who say it is legitimate are making assertions

I am not saying whether the election was or was not fraudulent, I am saying there is no way to know if it was legitimate because all the data that could show whether or not it is legitimate is hidden from us. There is no way to prove or disprove fraud if there is not any sort of audit procedure in place.

[apocalypsehow]

77. Provide evidence of fraud, or go away and cease embarrasing DU. It is that simple. n/t.

[Bjorn Against]

79. You obviously do not want transparency in government

That is the real embarassment. I don't need to prove fraud because I am not alleging fraud, I am claiming there is no way to know whether the results are being reported accurately because there is no independent verification and that is a fact.

[apocalypsehow]

88. Provide evidence of fraud, or go away and cease embarrasing DU. It is that simple. n/t.

[laundry_queen]

95. How can you prove evidence of fraud

when you aren't allowed to see the evidence? All people are asking for is to see the evidence. So sorry election integrity is embarrassing to you.

[SGMRTDARMY]

96. Maybe, just maybe

you can't see the evidence because there is no evidence, or are you of the mindset that because there is no evidence, thats the evidence?
Why the hell can't it just be accepted that, until proof is provided, we got spanked? There are several reasons why we lost, we were outspent by 8 to 1, ran a weak candidate, 60% of Wisconsinites said that recalls should only be used for criminal or malfeseance reasons, 36% of households with a union member voted for Walker, why, I have no fucking clue, but it is what it is.

We need to move on and concentrate on this Nov.

[apocalypsehow]

147. Provide evidence of fraud, or go away and cease embarrasing DU. It is that simple. n/t.

[laundry_queen]

148. Who knew

that asking for proprietary code to be public was embarrassing to DU. I won't go away. Not until the US has paper ballots. You deserve democracy. Your machines are the laughing stock of the rest of the world.

[414]

122. LOL at your call for transparency...

...and (I'm assuming here because it's the Dem consensus) your disapproval of Voter ID laws.

Whatever. Time to move on to November...

[Bjorn Against]

135. This is nothing like voter ID laws

Voter ID laws stop a lot of legitimate voters from casting ballot but do virtually nothing to stop actual voter fraud. Having a way to audit the vote count brings transparency but does not prevent a single person from casting a ballot. You are making an extremely bad analogy.

[eridani]

127. Elections departments should be required to present evidence about

--the ABSENCE of fraud. As computer security expert David Dill once said, "It is not enough that elections BE accurate; we have to KNOW that they are accurate, and we don't"

[gkhouston]

131. Bad intent isn't even necessary for bad results. The software could simply be crap

and we wouldn't know it because the code is proprietary.

[eridani]

145. And even if it isn't crap, screwups can still happen.

I'm a retired analytical chemist, and we were required to turn in hand calculations with every data set to verify that no glitches had developed in our very complex software. One time I discovered a totally random off by a factor of 10 error in the final results. I wound up having to wipe my entire hard drive and reinstall everyting.

[L. Coyote]

56. I know. All true and no need to prove it. But,

how do you prove an election was fair is a fair question, otherwise there is the worry that there is no way of knowing when one is not fair.

Election theft is not like murder in that there is not corpse, just a loser as is, of course, the course of elections. So who does the burden of proving elections are indeed fair rest upon?

[EFerrari]

57. The proof of validity rests on the people presenting the results.

If the standard is one "man", one vote, then that is the standard and it should be transparent.

[Chan790]

64. No, proof of validity rests on the person asserting fraud.

Demanding proof of validity (the absence of fraud) is to demand proof of a negative. A verifiable paper record is not and can not be construed as proof of the absence of fraud, no matter how transparent.

You assert a positive assertion (the presence of fraud), the onus on on you to prove the positive assertion and not on anybody else to disprove your assertion.

Prove fraud. Can't? That speaks for itself.

[cthulu2016]

72. I've been pondering just this question

The claim of honest and correct election result is made by the state. That is an extraordinary claim, since there are a billion ways it can be incorrect and only one way it can be correct, and thus demands substantial evidence, in my book.

In a conversation between citizens, however, the correctness of the electoral results is buttressed by something. Not an ideal proof, but a combination of private polling and whatever assurances the state offers of it. It is strongly suggestive that an election is likelier to identify the correct winner than flipping a coin.

So in that conversation the claim of fraud would require some evidence. If, however, the same fraud-claimant had the same conversation with the state then the state would bear the burden.


IMO

[EFerrari]

81. Nope. I haven't asserted fraud.

I am asking you what basis you have to have confidence in the result.

That's a different proposition entirely.

[SGMRTDARMY]

93. Your correct in that you haven't asserted fraud

My basis as to a fairly accurate and fair election is that it was very closely watched by poll watchers and the DOJ which sent observers down to WI. The only people claiming election fraud are some posters here whom have been asked over and over to provide proof of election fraud to which none has been posted, and the one poster who was very loud about it is no longer with us.

So far I haven't heard of anyone in the know in WI claim there was any election fraud. Were there dirty tricks played? Yes, and those should be investigated by the proper authorities, but as far as the results, I think they were pretty accurate.

Am I bummed out about the results? Yeah, I am but, absence any proof, I believe it's was a fair election.

Of course there's always room for improvement and I would welcome any suggestions.

[EFerrari]

97. The problem with the idea that poll watchers or the DoJ watched this election closely

is that it is not possible to watch the tabulation of either touchscreens or op scan ballots.

So, while obvious dirty tricks, such as vote caging or moving a poll without notice or opening late and closing early or misleading robocalls can be observed and reported and dealt with, the very counting of the votes that we all try to protect is done in secret on machines using proprietary software that has already been shown to be vulnerable.

I submit, that is a problem, especially if your basis for confidence in the result is that the vote was closely watched.

[SGMRTDARMY]

100. So we're right back where we started form

you can't provide any proof of election fraud and I can't provide any proof there wasn't.

[EFerrari]

112. In this thread, we've determined that our votes are not counted in public

and in fact, that not even election monitors can watch the counting.

Faith based voting is a helluva way to run a democracy.

[eridani]

129. Horseshit. If I give you a lab report asserting that there are x parts per million

--arsenic in your drinking water, I have the duty to prove that my results are correct (all data, standards, instrument maintenance logs, etc, are open to your inspection.) You do not have the responsibility to prove that I am wrong.

[4th law of robotics]

105. Prove the entire government isn't being run by lizard people

go on, show your proof. Do it or admit that the government is in fact in the thrall of subterranean lizard people.

/I bet you can't prove (to my satisfaction) that this isn't the case.

[EFerrari]

109. Try reading the thread. n/t

[4th law of robotics]

113. Any post in particular?

Although I suspect about half are lizard people. And I don't trust lizard people.

[EFerrari]

118. That's okay. I doubt they trust you, either. n/t

[4th law of robotics]

133. Prove it.

[virgogal]

2. A nice sane post. Too many conspiracy theories here in

the last 18 hours.

[EFerrari]

3. Fine. Then please show me the votes.

Because if you can't, you are promoting a conspiracy theory, too!

[virgogal]

10. If that's how you feel,so be it.

[EFerrari]

12. It isn't how I "feel", but what I expect from an election.

To be able to verify the votes. So, can you or can we or not?

[GarroHorus]

15. He;s not an elections official, EFerrari

Just like Obama wasn't a Hawaii Department of Health official when it came to the long form birth certificate.

Really, conspiracy theory logic is universal whether it's Truther, Birther, Grassy Knoller, or BBVer.

[EFerrari]

22. The conspiracy theory is that you can know the results of an election counted in secret.

Lmao.

[GarroHorus]

23. The votes in Wisconsin were counted PUBLICLY.

So really, take of the tinfoil.

[EFerrari]

37. Um, no, they aren't. You're out of your depth. n/t

[GarroHorus]

40. Oh, yes they are. Take off the tinfoil. n/t

[EFerrari]

41. Let's see. Touch screens cannot be counted in public.

And OpScan ballots take time to be counted, given that there is a secure chain of custody.

Where were these OpScan ballots counted in public? I'd love to hear.

[GarroHorus]

45. Citizen Observers at every vote tally location

http://www.werewatchingwisconsinelections.org/

I cannot remember the screen name, but at least one person who posts on this site is a citizen observer in Wisconsin.

This is an orderly method of public vote tallying. To do it any other way would be chaos.

[EFerrari]

48. The name you want is PeaceNikki.

And given that she is recovering today, you may want to wait before you ask her if the op scan ballots are counted in public because she will have to say, no, they're not.

[eomer]

39. Whatever could you mean by that?

Most of the votes in Wisconsin were counted by computers (optical scanners) and no human had an opportunity to look at any of the ballots and tally them up. Do you call that counting publicly? If so that's an odd way to describe it.

[EFerrari]

42. Maybe the poster means that they looked at the machine totals twice. n/t

[L. Coyote]

69. The machine is in a public place when it reports the tally?

How is the machine's tallying publicly monitored?

[uponit7771]

4. One election we lose due to fraud DOES = every election is suspcious I'm not going to forget Bush 01

[EFerrari]

11. It was in 2000. nt

[Warpy]

5. We need to worry about both, actually

I refused to make cash bets on yesterday's election, but I strongly suspected most Wisconsonites disapproved of the recall process, itself, whether or not they had any use for Walker, and that is likely why the recall failed.

It's too bad, but remember a couple of things: first, it cost a bunch of smarmy plutocrats a huge amount of money; second, Walker might not finish his term because too many prosecutors are hot on his trail.

Citizens United is one of the worst decisions of the Supreme Court. It will eventually be overturned, either when the wingers have the decency to go face their maker and are replaced by sensible justices or when a constitutional amendment is passed and ratified. In the short term, which might be anything from months to decades, we will be treated to corporate vomit in all the media during every election season.

The mechanisms that put W into office against the will of the people are largely still in place and voter suppression is being added to them. Again, we're going to have to look to the courts to get a lot of this stuff overturned and voters restored to the roles.

Conservatives want nothing more or less than the restoration of a monarchy. Even the ones at the bottom would love the certainty of an aristocratic system that relieves them of the self blame for being relative failures financially and all want the perceived order than oppression seems to accomplish. This is who they are: rigid follow the leader types who demand a leader and resent anyone who suggests they do their own thinking.

Only when they become convinced that the aristocracy itself is threatening order rather than preserving it do they wake up and rebel.

This is what we're fighting and this is also why Walker lost.

[polichick]

7. With a system like ours fraud plays a part in...

...every election, whether we win or lose.

Citizens United is just the latest example of election fraud. Kind of amazing that the American people quietly accept the idea that corporations are citizens - perhaps we get what we deserve.

[MineralMan]

9. You're far too, Logical.

We do lose sometimes. This was one of those. Even many union members voted against the recall. People hesitate to recall sitting Governors. That's why only two have been recalled in our history.

[AverageJoe90]

21. Sadly, I think you're right about one thing.

There were some who didn't think the recall was the right thing to do, including even some on our side(as hard as it is to believe).....while these people may have had decent intentions, we all know that old saying involving hell and what can pave the road to it, right?

[sharp_stick]

13. I was going to say

that you're going to be asked PDQ to provide proof that something has not happened. But I'll be damned if it didn't happen within a couple of minutes of the post.

The simple fact that you do not, read refuse to, provide proof of the negative as asked will be taken as evidence in the future that fraud is rampant.

Conspiracy theorists always find a way to keep the conspiracy alive no matter how illogical it might be.

[EOTE]

18. Election fraud gave us Bush in 2000 and 2004.

Without Bush, I seriously doubt we'd have Citizens United. So yeah, crooked elections are probably the most dangerous thing the country is facing right now.

[GarroHorus]

20. In 2000, it was a voter roll purge.

In 2004 it was simple voter obstruction.

No massive ballot fraud in either case, though.

No black box voting conspiracy nuttery either.

[EOTE]

24. Like it matters?

It was election fraud, without it, Bush wouldn't have won either election. I don't give a rat's ass if it's "massive ballot fraud" or "black box voting conspiracy nuttery", it was the subversion of democracy and the entire democratic process. Also, the voter purge in 2000 wasn't enough alone to give the election to Bush. Had the recount continued to completion and Florida's standard of valid votes been upheld, Gore still would have won. Why the hell does it matter the specifics of the election fraud that prevented the country from receiving the president it voted for? It was election fraud, plain and simple.

[GarroHorus]

26. There is a problem with the "Had the recount continued to completion" thing.

If the recount had continued to completion as outlined by the Gore team, Gore would have lost. Only a statewide recount would have resulted in Gore winning and there was no court case anywhere where that would have been the recount.

I put that as a failure by the Gore team. There was no scenario given by the Gore team where they would have won, so there was no way for any other outcome than for Bush to be president.

Furthermore, had Gore even gone so far as to request and obtain a statewide recount, I doubt seriously if his electors would have been seated. The Republicans had the constitutionally required numbers to object to the Florida electors and thus neither candidate would have had a majority of electors. It would have then been thrown to the House where the GOP held the majority on a majority of state caucuses, thus Bush would have won by a vote of 27 to 23 in the House. Al Gore would have cast the deciding vote for Veep in the Senate, but I doubt he would have gone for Lieberman after having just lost in the House for the presidency. That would have been too contentious.

So yes, in the end it was the voter purge that determined the outcome. Oh, if a few hundred Nader voters had not been ideological purists it could have been different, but here we are.

[EOTE]

28. He had to proceed with his most viable option.

And at the time the Gore team believed that to be a limited recount. The scenario for a Gore win would have been either the votes to have been counted fairly the first time, and/or the illegal voter purge never to have happened and/or for there to have been a fair vote initially. Any one of those things would have provided a Gore victory.

All of this is beside the point, though, as my original point is that election fraud is THE biggest issue the country is facing right now. You seem to admit that election fraud cost Gore the election in 2000, yet you don't seem to think it's a massive issue. Until we have legitimate elections in this country, pretty much nothing else matters. We don't live in a democracy until that happens.

[GarroHorus]

29. The voter purge was legal in Florida at the time

Sad, but true. so in the end, little of fraud played a role in the 2000 Florida debacle. It was more of a problem with the Bush team being geared up to fight tooth and nail all the way to the end and the Gore team being too timid.

And I've seen zero evidence of fraud in Ohio's 2004 election. I've seen allegations and a lot of blog posts, but nothing involving hard evidence. That was more a case of depressing Democratic voter turnout through a variety of dirty tricks combined with a successful GOP GOTV effort.

[EOTE]

30. So it's perfectly legal to remove legal voters from the rolls

simply because their names are similar to felons? Odd, I really can't imagine that's the case. I'm very interested in seeing where you get your assertion that legal voters can legally be removed from voter lists due to that criteria. What Choicepoint (and the Bush team/Jeb/Harris) did was entirely illegal and is without a doubt election fraud. Just because they weren't held to account doesn't make what they did legal.

And you may have seen zero evidence of fraud in 2004, but that's not saying a whole hell of a lot. Ohio in 2004 was Florida in 2000. Exit polling has been used in democracies for decades to ensure legitimate elections, but in 2004 when the exit polls were entirely off base, television networks changed the exit poll results to match the "actual" results with no explanation as to why. Somehow, between 2000 and 2004, all of a sudden exit polling was now considered to be some sort of tea leaf reading pseudo-science. I'm glad you've got the sense to at least realize that the 2000 election was stolen, but your assessment of the lack of election fraud is still extremely optimistic.

Anyway, I'm off to make my trek home now.

[GarroHorus]

31. Yep, it was perfectly legal.

In fact, it was required by chapter 98.0975 of Florida law at the time that the SoS contract with a third party for the purge.

I don't buy the exit polling line. Exit polling is only useful when the results are wildly divergent from the exit polls. That was not the case in Ohio, 2004.

[EOTE]

83. Gotcha, it's perfectly legal to purge legitimate voters from the voter rolls.

Just because they have somewhat similar names to felons. Gotcha chief, makes perfect sense. Hey, you better stand up to those fucking fascists at the DoJ, they're preventing Florida from doing their perfectly legal activity of purging legitimate voters, you should be screaming your head off to stop them. States rights! States rights!

[GarroHorus]

84. Apples to oranges, chief.

The law in 2000 had been around for 2 years, had been reported to the DOJ in a timely fashion as required under the voting rights act, had been signed off on, and had been used three years running, chief.

This year the purge is being done on nothing more than a claimed executive authority, it was not communicated to the DOJ as required by two separate federal laws, and there is no law on the books in FL giving Scott his authority.

But don't let a silly thing like facts get in the way of a perfectly good rant, chief.

[EOTE]

85. The law said NOTHING about removing LEGITIMATE VOTERS from the voter rolls.

Please point out precisely where Florida law mentioned that LEGITIMATE VOTERS can legally be removed if they had a name similar to a felon's. I'm sure you'll be pointing that out right away.

You are utterly full of it. I'm sure you'll be letting facts get in the way of providing that little bit.

[GarroHorus]

89. The law gave the authority to remove voters from the rolls

Legitimate voters were removed every year the law was in place and the law still withstood any and all challenges.

It was perfectly legal. Short sighted, stupid, cruel, amongst other things, but still perfectly legal.

And the law had to be changed to stop it, too. It was not repealed until the weak HAVA act was passed at the national level and was still in place during the next election and still removed legitimate voters from the rolls.

And was still 100% legal until it was repealed...

History is replete with short sighted, stupid, and cruel acts done 100% within the law. It is the nature of laws.

[EOTE]

90. Nice citation there, chief.

Yep, you sure have proven yourself by providing exactly where it's legal to remove legal voters from the voter rolls there.

And you know how states have a legal authority to lock up felons? I now know that you believe that it's also OK for them to lock up people who have similar names as felons. I mean, it's legal to lock up felons, surely it's legal to lock up those who have traits similar to felons. Really brilliant thinking there. HAVA (act is part of the acronym) brought more attention to these types of acts and helped to prevent them in the future, it sure as hell didn't mean that those activities weren't illegal in the first place.

[GarroHorus]

91. you know, your idiocy with the "chief" bullshit ends here

Good bye

[EOTE]

92. Another brilliant reply.

I was expecting a citation to something, maybe even a wikipedia article or something of the like. What you've provided is much more convincing. I'll know better in the future. What you say goes. Fuck facts, they're way overrated.

Good bye

[HiPointDem]

34. Lots of folks with right-wing talking points here these days.

[GarroHorus]

38. What right wing talking points?

Please elaborate.

[SGMRTDARMY]

67. It's RW talking points because

we have a different opinion than his/hers. Here's the thing though, MIRT has been pretty quick on the draw to remove RW assholes starting last night so I guess those of us who disagree with him/her are not spouting RW talking points. Matter of fact, Skinner removed one poster who kept insisting that there was election fraud while providing zero evidence.

[EOTE]

86. Ain't that the truth.

Christ, I can't even imagine a REPUBLICAN would try to convince me that removing legitimate voters from the voter rolls is legal because they have a name that's similar to a felon's. Some things I see written here would make a freeper face palm.

[Zoeisright]

144. Wrong.

Stopping an election recount when one person is ahead is undemocratic and completely, morally wrong.

And Gore would have won if all the votes had been counted.

[GarroHorus]

146. Yes, Gore would have won had all the votes been ciunted.

The problem is, all the votes would NOT have been counted under the recount that was underway when Bush V Gore stopped the recount, and Gore would NOT have won had the targetted recount been completed.

[eridani]

130. Right. You are delusional if you think that the Ohio county that

--reported a possible terrorist attack and eliminated all elections observers turned in a correct result.

[AverageJoe90]

19. True, but if there are reports of such......

then it must be investigated. No exceptions.

[RC]

25. The problem is Citizen United, but not Election Fraud?

Isn't Citizen United allowing the buying of elections and somehow that does not involve Election Fraud?

How logical is that?

[Logical]

27. Because it is legal! Remember?

[rhett o rick]

32. We know Repukes will cheat. I think they cheat whether they need to or not. As far as I am concerned

every election we lose is fixed until proven otherwise.

You want to say Repukes are innocent until proven guilty. Not me. They are guilty until proven otherwise.

I might agree that campaign financing reform is more important than election reform, but not by much.

[Rex]

33. Right sure they should, ridiculous way of thinking.

Logical? Not even. Everyone knows we don't lose because of fraud. Thanks for the suggestion...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

35. Pardon me, but don't we need to be concerned about BOTH? What about Florida?

Clearly there is voter fraud and there WILL BE election fraud as a result.

[L. Coyote]

70. Voter caging in Florida altered the national political landscape and impacted the world

The R actions in Florida 2000 are certainly reason enough to guard against future election fraud.

[lynne]

36. Certainly not at this margin -

- I think possible fraud is always a question for those too-close-to-call races but not with the margin of this race.

To be constantly saying that races are lost due to fraud sounds a lot like the boy who cried wolf. Soon people begin to totally ignore the cry and consider it just an excuse. It also prevents us from seriously examining a race to determine why we lost so as to prevent it in the future.

[gkhouston]

43. In the absence of transparent elections, we have no way to assess the truth of your assertion. n/t

[Prometheus Bound]

50. I haven't read one case on DU of someone saying every election we lose is because of fraud.

Could you show us where you saw it?

[L. Coyote]

68. Ding! Ding!

This is an old debate trick. Assertion #1 is supported by unrelated truism.
Ad sequiter truisms do not convert B.S. to Miracle Grown produce ready for consumption.

First, have there never been stolen elections? If answer is yes or maybe, then it is reasonable to ask of all elections, "Is this election fair?"

Especially if the people who have recently been stealing votes and/or otherwise rigging election results are still running elections today.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

104. Oh c'mon

You know very few people have time to dig through thousands of threads for every close special election there has been where inevitably someone says "SOMETHING STINKS HERE!" just because they refuse to face the disappointment that more idiots showed up to vote Repug.

I remember when Weiner's district had it's special election, there were people screaming fraud there, even though the Democrat running for his seat had been way behind in all the polls and I have never heard a claim prior that the NY State Board of Elections was corrupt.

[Prometheus Bound]

107. OK, that's one election. The OP said EVERY election.

His whole thread is based on a logical fallacy.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

137. I think you're smart enough to understand hyperbole

I admit, I've yet to see someone claim Jeff Sessions or John Cornyn won their seats because they rigged the ballot box. I think even the biggest partisan accepts the electorate there is overwhelmingly dumb. Although that doesn't stop the regular "THIS IS THE YEAR TEXAS DUMPS RICK PERRY" predictions.

[Prometheus Bound]

139. I guess I would classify it as a strawman rather than hyperbole.

If he had written it as Bonobo put it in post 128, it would have been logical and more in line with what you mean.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002777378#post128

[EFerrari]

116. There was all kind of discussion of NY when they were trying to get rid of the lever machines.

You can pull up those threads in the Election Reform archives.

[meanit]

58. So let's give the Republicans the benefit of the doubt....

again. And again. And again. These guys have a real bad track record with elections. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking "Walker won fair and square" just because evidence to the contrary has not come out (YET).

Honestly, how many times do we have to be hit over the fucking head before we realize what we are dealing with?

[2pooped2pop]

59. The problem is that we know it's possible

and apparently not hard. We also know that no one wants to talk about it or listen to us. We know that it is easy enough to change election results and no one wants to fix it. This tells us that it is not a mistake that election results can be changed unseen.

This tells us that no election in the United States of America is a true election.

Now was there any shenanigans going on in Wis.? I don't know. They won't let us actually examine the machines. I know that as long as it is possible, it can't be trusted. I know this country has gone to hell and I know that I don't trust anything any of our "elected" officials has to say.

[TBF]

61. I've seen that talking point alot today -

along with the one about how this and that democrat doesn't support unions.

Y'all are gonna have to try harder than that.

[robinlynne]

62. and you know that how?

[Logical]

73. So you are claiming EVERY election we lose is fraud? Really?

[robinlynne]

76. I can state that there has been fraud in every election since 2000. That I know.

Including in elections we "won". Do you actually believe Obama only received 51% of the vote in 2008?
Did you see the lines in the streets all around the country to vote for him?

[Jamaal510]

63. Republicans can never win an election without stretching the truth.

IMO, there is no such thing as a Republican winning fair and square nowadays. They use irrelevant social issues in order to fear-monger (such as how Walker lied about Barrett wanting to take away guns), and they try to con poor and middle-class voters to vote against their economic interests for more austerity so only the rich and the corporations can prosper.

The problems that Democrats have are not being articulate enough in their message, and of course the Citizens United. They need to do an even better job of showing non-rich voters that safety net programs and higher taxes on the 1% are beneficial to them and the rest of the country, and more austerity is harmful. And until Citizens United is overturned, Republicans can continue to "make it rain" and flood the airwaves with deceptive ads.

[TheKentuckian]

66. Of course not but since elections are not transparent and worse the opposition owns

the proprietary and unverifiable code it is always possible.

The assumption of valid results is an assumption not a fact and if you are bugged by the line of argument then you should be putting your energy and time into making our elections transparent and verifiable.

[a2liberal]

75. but that does NOT mean that there is never fraud

Fraud almost certainly does exist and we do need to stay vigilant about it too (and push for ALWAYS having a paper trail).

[lunatica]

80. I must be really dumb

Pray tell me what is the difference between Citizens United and crooked elections. Maybe I'm not the one who is really dumb.

[WI_DEM]

87. We lost in WI because 70% of the voters oppose recalls either everytime

or if there isn't something to do with ethics/criminal activity. They should be happy when he is indicted!

[Capt. Obvious]

94. I think alien abductions are a more pressing threat

Prove to me they don't happen

[EFerrari]

99. Then you didn't follow FL in 2000 or Ohio in 2004 or San Diego in 2006

or New Hampshire or Los Angeles County in the 2008 primaries or Los Angeles County on the Prop H8 vote.

Maybe you should stick to alien abductions since you seem to have more of an interest in them.

[HubertHeaver]

120. New Hampshire would have been an excellent test case.

Machine counts went for Hillary, hand counts went for Obama. A complete hand re-count would have been a great public service.

[oldhippie]

101. Look, lets just face reality .....

Any election we win was a fair one. Those we lose weren't.

There, isn't that much easier?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

103. Too many on DU are like NBA fans

When your team loses, it must be rigged. Because in a fair and just world "our team" should never lose. So it MUST be rigged.

We lost Wisconsin because some people are just stupid.

[RZM]

111. LOL. I remember arguing about this with my friends over 20 years ago

When the Reds were in the world series in 1990 (which they went on to win). Every playoff game they lost, all of my friends complained that the umps robbed them. I tried to explain that every team is going to lose some playoff games, but they weren't trying to hear it.

Of course, this was kids. Adults have no excuse.

[EFerrari]

117. And yet the Election Reform forum doesn't shut down regardless of who wins.

Too many on DU are like those people who keep buying lottery tickets because this time, they might win.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

136. We won in 2006 and 2008

Barely a peep then. Why not steal those elections too?

Some states are absolutely suspicious. Wisconsin has not been one of them. Until now, because people here couldn't deal with the result. Everyone here wanted Walker defeated.....that's proof! Right?

[EFerrari]

140. Actually, in 2006, Landshark was involved in a high profile litigation

over an election in San Diego. Lots of peeps. And in 2008, a DUer was heavily involved in trying to recount L.A. County's Prop 8 vote, which a study later found was most likely corrupted. Lots of peeps then, too.

As I said, the Election Reform Forum never closes.

[eridani]

149. Also, "Landslide Denied" was posted in Election Reform at the time

http://electiondefensealliance.org/landslide_denied_exit_polls_vs_vote_count_2006

Similar concerns expressed in 2008
http://www.richardcharnin.com/LandslideDenied2008Rerun2006.htm

The rest of DU might not be interested in election integrity when we win, but Election Reform never sleeps.

[4th law of robotics]

106. I am sure that many of the people claiming this is fraud because . . . well it just is

would also claim that a republican who said the same thing (every election republicans lose is due to fraud) is unhinged and bitter.

[SGMRTDARMY]

110. It just amazes me that

some people think that because we lost, there had to be election fraud.
Certain posters here just need to realize that we got spanked because the Repukes did a better job of getting the vote out.
Lets move on and just work harder for Nov.

[414]

123. Ding ding ding...

This x1000...

[shcrane71]

115. You're wrong.

[shcrane71]

114. It goes hand-in-hand.

Too much money equals corruption.

[meaculpa2011]

125. It has nothing to do with BIG money...

and nothing to do with electronic voting machines. I was involved in voter fraud back in the 1960s. I was a bi-lingual technical advisor in NYC and was permitted to go into the booth with non-English speaking voters. Once inside, I just pulled all the levers for the party that was paying me. A few dozen votes often decided city council and state assembly results and a recount would not have shown any fraud. As long as there's been government, there's been fraud and corruption.

[Bonobo]

128. I guess you meant to say "Not every election we lose is because of fraud!"

I really hate that particular mistake.

But you're right.

[crazyjoe]

142. YES IT IS!!!

[Zoeisright]

143. ONE is too many.

And repukes control WAY too many of the voting machines. When exit polls don't match the results, that's a perfectly logical reason to question if fraud played a part. That's a criteria for legal elections in every other part of the world. Except the US.