Do you still think voting fraud doesn't happen?

[Damajin]

Ive heard that Dead Voting Machines are still voting too!

No but dead people are.

[drakensoul]

So, importantly, people need to separate the different types of voting fraud that goes on.

When people talk about "voter fraud", they are generally talking about individual voter fraud (aka voter impersonation), which really doesn't happen (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...-ballots-cast/). Despite claims that people are able to vote as dead people, they generally get caught before their votes are ever counted. Additionally, even the most effective approaches conceivable precludes voter fraud from getting to be impactful. (http://www.scholarsstrategynetwork.o...ican-elections http://www.factcheck.org/2016/10/tru...-fraud-claims/)

However, voting fraud (aka electoral fraud) is something to worry about. This can involve poll workers, voting machines, or other people involved in tallying / collecting the ballots. Note that the article referenced is looking at this type of fraud. Historically (worldwide), this is the type of voting fraud that concerns people that are familiar with voting issues. If this turns out to be true in this election, it would be one of the few modern instances of this happening in the US.

Unfortunately first impressions matter more than reality.

And since the first impression is an OP post purporting that voter fraud is happening and linking it to "extremely heavy Democrat controlled area," that's what people see.

But I appreciated your post, for what it's worth.

[Elegiac]

No but dead people are.

This almost always happens because someone submits an absentee ballot but dies before it's counted.

[Captain N]

No but dead people are.

You mean people on the voting rolls who vote and then die -- Or people in the same family with the same name?

I mean if you're going to drag up the usual Republican Talking Points to Dead Voters you're gonna have a bad time.

[Noxx79]

From the article:

Here is a breakdown of the irregularities in Detroit’s 662 precincts:

■236 precincts in balance — equal numbers of voters counted by workers and machines

■248 precincts with too many votes and no explanation (77 were 1 over; 62 were 2 over, 37 were 3 over, 20 were 4 over, 52 were 5 or more over).

■144 precincts with too few votes and no explanation (81 were 1 under, 29 were 2 under; 19 were 3 under; 7 were 4 under; 8 were 5 or more under)

■34 precincts out of balance but with an explanation

This has been discussed before.

We're looking a massive .05% of the vote in MI. This is not massive voter fraud

[Damajin]

This almost always happens because someone submits an absentee ballot but dies before it's counted.

Nah.

/10char

[alexw]

Ive heard that Dead Voting Machines are still voting too!

I head democrats loaded up voting machines into buses and drove them all around the state to have them used in multiple places.

- - - Updated - - -

"the voting machines are criminals and rapists"

but some are good voting machines?

[Noxx79]

Nah.

/10char

Such evidence.

[Paranoid Android]

I head democrats loaded up voting machines into buses and drove them all around the state to have them used in multiple places.

- - - Updated - - -



but some are good voting machines?

I bet all the voting machines were.................................BLACK!!

[Belize]

Such evidence.

Well, I'm convinced. I mean, with that argument, how could you not be?

[cubby]

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/new...ncts/95363314/



So there were massive irregularities across the state, but primarily in an extremely heavy Democrat controlled area. The claim from the city is that it was due to the machines jamming and nothing malicious. However the same machines are used across the entire state and the percent of precincts in Detroit with problems was 37% compared to 10.1% overall for the state (this includes Detroit's higher numbers). The article also claims that these jams generally result in a lower number of votes than voters.

It's like you read these things but can't put a simple 2+2 together. Your answer is: raisins.

I mean, does it even bother you at all that they refused to do a recount? Spurred on by the "liberal" side?

[Damajin]

Such evidence.

Rofl as though what I was responding to was stacked to the ceiling with it.

This is a partisan issue, so we can sling links all day and neither I nor Didactic is going to think differently.

[Chrysia]

Rofl as though what I was responding to was stacked to the ceiling with it.

This is a partisan issue, so we can sling links all day and neither I nor Didactic is going to think differently.

I mean, you can't get much more proof than the Kansas investigation of this thing, which was supposed to catch something like 100 cases of dead or duplicate voting and found...4, all of which were absentee double ballots. All the others were: people registered in two areas, but they actually only voted in their new location, people who died between submitting their vote and the vote being counted, children that shared the same name as their parent being counted as a "dead person voting," or some other mundane explanation that wasn't actually fraud.

[zenkai]

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/12/1...voters-detroit

[Endus]

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/12/1...voters-detroit

Always helpful when your own source lies, directly.

Detroit precincts were tracking votes two ways; the number of ballots cast, and the number of votes tallied by poll workers. All they've found is that those two counts don't match in these districts; they're off by a handful, either way. Which is more likely, that someone engaged in complex voter fraud to add a few dozen votes across all Detroit, or that poll workers just missed a few voters due to human error?

By all means, double-check the results, but don't act like this means "more votes were cast than there were voters", because that's NOT what's going on here.

[God Save The King]

Of course it happens. We have documented cases of it happening.

It's just that when the amount of voter fraud is around 1 in 50 million ballots, we consider that to be negligible.

[Orange Joe]

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/12/1...voters-detroit

Am I missing something here? Same story as OP.


Did you check the source they listed?

[Azadina]

but some are good voting machines?

Yes. Some also can't do their job properly, because of their origins.

[Saucexorzski]

More news Dems wont care about and dismiss, it must be "fake".

[Utinil]

Always helpful when your own source lies, directly.

Detroit precincts were tracking votes two ways; the number of ballots cast, and the number of votes tallied by poll workers. All they've found is that those two counts don't match in these districts; they're off by a handful, either way. Which is more likely, that someone engaged in complex voter fraud to add a few dozen votes across all Detroit, or that poll workers just missed a few voters due to human error?

By all means, double-check the results, but don't act like this means "more votes were cast than there were voters", because that's NOT what's going on here.

If it was just human error you would see similar levels inconsistencies across the entire state, instead you are seeing a substantially higher amount (almost 4x as often) in one specific area. Also your final line "don't act like this means 'more votes were cast than there were voters', because that's NOT what's going on here." is completely wrong. This in fact is the exact issue. There were more votes registered than there were voters who showed up to vote. The number off isn't huge, I will admit, but there were more votes than voters.