Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Review)   "Proven voter fraud, statistically, happens about as often as death by lightning strike." In related news, if you live in Cincinnati, Ohio, it is recommended that you do not venture outdoors for a while. A long while   (nationalreview.com) divider line 221
    More: Obvious, Brennan Center, voter fraud, poll worker  
•       •       •

2482 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Feb 2013 at 2:47 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



221 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-08 01:07:54 PM  
Ok, so if there were 19 cases in Hamilton County, OH, and Hamilton county voter turnout was 156,558, then that means that voter fraud could have, potentially, accounted for 0.012% of the vote.

Clearly this changes everything and we need to hold new elections.
 
2013-02-08 01:11:20 PM  
Sorry.  I don't trust supervillains.

api.photoshop.com
 
2013-02-08 01:19:42 PM  

nmrsnr: Ok, so if there were 19 cases in Hamilton County, OH, and Hamilton county voter turnout was 156,558, then that means that voter fraud could have, potentially, accounted for 0.012% of the vote.

Clearly this changes everything and we need to hold new elections.


  More over, it appears that the system worked.  It identified that these people voted twice, and I'm assuming tossed the additional vote.
 
2013-02-08 02:20:20 PM  

CPT Ethanolic: nmrsnr: Ok, so if there were 19 cases in Hamilton County, OH, and Hamilton county voter turnout was 156,558, then that means that voter fraud could have, potentially, accounted for 0.012% of the vote.

Clearly this changes everything and we need to hold new elections.

  More over, it appears that the system worked.  It identified that these people voted twice, and I'm assuming tossed the additional vote.


Uh.. how would they know which vote to toss?
 
2013-02-08 02:22:03 PM  

nmrsnr: Ok, so if there were 19 cases in Hamilton County, OH, and Hamilton county voter turnout was 156,558, then that means that voter fraud could have, potentially, accounted for 0.012% of the vote.

Clearly this changes everything and we need to hold new elections.


Uh...I'm not sure where your numbers are coming from, but this says that there were   397,161 votes cast in Hamilton County. That's .00005% of the vote, well within the statistical models that the voter fraud studies show. 

Which doesn't disprove what you said, of course, it just makes your point that much stronger :p
 
2013-02-08 02:23:29 PM  

bradkanus: CPT Ethanolic: nmrsnr: Ok, so if there were 19 cases in Hamilton County, OH, and Hamilton county voter turnout was 156,558, then that means that voter fraud could have, potentially, accounted for 0.012% of the vote.

Clearly this changes everything and we need to hold new elections.

  More over, it appears that the system worked.  It identified that these people voted twice, and I'm assuming tossed the additional vote.

Uh.. how would they know which vote to toss?


The absentee one.  Lots of times those aren't even counted if they can't affect the outcome of the race.
 
2013-02-08 02:23:50 PM  

nmrsnr: Ok, so if there were 19 cases in Hamilton County, OH, and Hamilton county voter turnout was 156,558, then that means that voter fraud could have, potentially, accounted for 0.012% of the vote.

Clearly this changes everything and we need to hold new elections.


HMM... so if less than one percent of the population breaks the law, it's really not a problem, right?

What percentage is 8,583 of 310,000,000?
 
2013-02-08 02:25:00 PM  

Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: bradkanus: CPT Ethanolic: nmrsnr: Ok, so if there were 19 cases in Hamilton County, OH, and Hamilton county voter turnout was 156,558, then that means that voter fraud could have, potentially, accounted for 0.012% of the vote.

Clearly this changes everything and we need to hold new elections.

  More over, it appears that the system worked.  It identified that these people voted twice, and I'm assuming tossed the additional vote.

Uh.. how would they know which vote to toss?

The absentee one.  Lots of times those aren't even counted if they can't affect the outcome of the race.


Okaaaayyy... so how do they know which candidate to take the vote from?
 
2013-02-08 02:29:33 PM  

bradkanus: nmrsnr: Ok, so if there were 19 cases in Hamilton County, OH, and Hamilton county voter turnout was 156,558, then that means that voter fraud could have, potentially, accounted for 0.012% of the vote.

Clearly this changes everything and we need to hold new elections.

HMM... so if less than one percent of the population breaks the law, it's really not a problem, right?

What percentage is 8,583 of 310,000,000?


A problem, yes. A reason to entirely reform the system in a way that will demonstrably disenfranchise far more people, no.
 
2013-02-08 02:32:41 PM  

whistleridge: bradkanus: nmrsnr: Ok, so if there were 19 cases in Hamilton County, OH, and Hamilton county voter turnout was 156,558, then that means that voter fraud could have, potentially, accounted for 0.012% of the vote.

Clearly this changes everything and we need to hold new elections.

HMM... so if less than one percent of the population breaks the law, it's really not a problem, right?

What percentage is 8,583 of 310,000,000?

A problem, yes. A reason to entirely reform the system in a way that will demonstrably disenfranchise far more people, no.


Hey I'm with you - why would you take away the majority's rights and access because a very small percentave of the overall population breaks the rules?  It makes no sense to me.

So I'm sure you feel the same as I do about the assualt weapons ban proposed by Feinstein.  It's good to find common ground here.
 
2013-02-08 02:34:02 PM  
There is no reason to go outside in Cincinnati anyway.

They roll the sidewalks up at 6pm, and you can only visit the Aronoff, Museum Center, and the Nation Underground Railroad guilt trip depression museum so many times.
 
2013-02-08 02:34:21 PM  

whistleridge: nmrsnr: Ok, so if there were 19 cases in Hamilton County, OH, and Hamilton county voter turnout was 156,558, then that means that voter fraud could have, potentially, accounted for 0.012% of the vote.

Clearly this changes everything and we need to hold new elections.

Uh...I'm not sure where your numbers are coming from, but this says that there were   397,161 votes cast in Hamilton County. That's .00005% of the vote, well within the statistical models that the voter fraud studies show.
Which doesn't disprove what you said, of course, it just makes your point that much stronger :p


I googled and it was the first number that came up. Now that you point it out I checked with the Hamilton County Board of Elections results (links to pdf) and they say that in the presidential election there were 421,997 total voters (74.77% of registered voters) so the fraud now accounts for a whopping 0.00045% of the vote.
 
2013-02-08 02:34:48 PM  

Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: The absentee one.  Lots of times those aren't even counted if they can't affect the outcome of the race.


i.imgur.com

Citation Needed. This IA policy is just an example, but I've never seen any Secretary of State's office that openly refused to count absentee ballots (as a matter of stated policy) that were properly submitted.
 
2013-02-08 02:38:05 PM  

nmrsnr: whistleridge: nmrsnr: Ok, so if there were 19 cases in Hamilton County, OH, and Hamilton county voter turnout was 156,558, then that means that voter fraud could have, potentially, accounted for 0.012% of the vote.

Clearly this changes everything and we need to hold new elections.

Uh...I'm not sure where your numbers are coming from, but this says that there were   397,161 votes cast in Hamilton County. That's .00005% of the vote, well within the statistical models that the voter fraud studies show.
Which doesn't disprove what you said, of course, it just makes your point that much stronger :p

I googled and it was the first number that came up. Now that you point it out I checked with the Hamilton County Board of Elections results (links to pdf) and they say that in the presidential election there were 421,997 total voters (74.77% of registered voters) so the fraud now accounts for a whopping 0.00045% of the vote.


Can I steall .00045% of the money in the treasury? I mean, you've already stated that it's not that much.
 
2013-02-08 02:40:23 PM  

bradkanus: Can I steall .00045% of the money in the treasury?


You can try, but that's a felony. But then so is voter fraud.
 
2013-02-08 02:40:36 PM  
And I still like to know how elections officials can "un count" the votes cast twice by these people.

can anyone give me that answer?
 
2013-02-08 02:40:43 PM  

bradkanus: whistleridge: bradkanus: nmrsnr: Ok, so if there were 19 cases in Hamilton County, OH, and Hamilton county voter turnout was 156,558, then that means that voter fraud could have, potentially, accounted for 0.012% of the vote.

Clearly this changes everything and we need to hold new elections.

HMM... so if less than one percent of the population breaks the law, it's really not a problem, right?

What percentage is 8,583 of 310,000,000?

A problem, yes. A reason to entirely reform the system in a way that will demonstrably disenfranchise far more people, no.

Hey I'm with you - why would you take away the majority's rights and access because a very small percentave of the overall population breaks the rules?  It makes no sense to me.

So I'm sure you feel the same as I do about the assualt weapons ban proposed by Feinstein.  It's good to find common ground here.


Nice try, but that logic doesn't really work, and here's why:

Current level of voter fraud - does not affect election results
Proposed laws "fixing" the problem" - potentially changes election results due to massive disenfranchisement of eligible voters.

Current gun laws - lots of people dying
proposed future gun laws - fewer people dying

I am not for Feinstein's proposed ban (and as far as I hear it's DOA anyway) but you're comparison is flawed on its face.
 
2013-02-08 02:42:53 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: bradkanus: Can I steall .00045% of the money in the treasury?

You can try, but that's a felony. But then so is voter fraud.


but that guy just said it's not a big deal since it's not a big number.  Damn... I mean only 9,000 people out of 310,000,000 are murdered each year with a gun and people are screaming to have every last one of them banned.  Why is this any different?  We need to ban voting.
 
2013-02-08 02:44:01 PM  

bradkanus: but that guy just said it's not a big deal since it's not a big number.


Statistically it isn't. It's in the noise.
 
2013-02-08 02:44:47 PM  
I was in Cincinnati once, it reminded me of Baltimore, but with more hills.
 
2013-02-08 02:45:44 PM  
Clearly the only possible solution is to make sure negroes don't vote.
 
2013-02-08 02:49:20 PM  

nmrsnr: bradkanus: whistleridge: bradkanus: nmrsnr: Ok, so if there were 19 cases in Hamilton County, OH, and Hamilton county voter turnout was 156,558, then that means that voter fraud could have, potentially, accounted for 0.012% of the vote.

Nice try, but that logic doesn't really work, and here's why:

Current level of voter fraud - does not affect election results
Proposed laws "fixing" the problem" - potentially changes election results due to massive disenfranchisement of eligible voters.

Current gun laws - lots of people dying
proposed future gun laws - fewer people dying

I am not for Feinstein's proposed ban (and as far as I hear it's DOA anyway) but you're comparison is flawed on its face.


Hmm... in the states where they did change election law to require a picture ID there was no evidence of disfranchisement.  In fact, the numbers went up accordingly to the national trend this last election. So you're wrong about that.

Current gun laws are less restrictive than the one previous to assualt weapons ban and crime rate is down.  How do you square that hole in your argument?

My argument is equal to yours in every way.  You say that it is not a problem because it affects such a small portion of the overall outcome - guns fall into that same category.  You have a problem resolving what your assertion that voting is a victimless crime.  Do you only prosecute cases where the number of illegal votes is equal to how much one candidate won by?  What if it was a 10 vote margin?  would you still say it was not that big of deal?  Assuming all elections will feature a spread of thousands of votes is not something you can do using our legal system.  You can't assume such things.
 
2013-02-08 02:49:25 PM  
"proven" voter fraud always becomes an issue when the GOP lose an election by a large margin.

Odd, that.
 
2013-02-08 02:50:12 PM  
When it does happen, it usually requires a poll worker to be in on the fraud.
 
2013-02-08 02:52:01 PM  

Lost Thought 00: When it does happen, it usually requires a poll worker to be in on the fraud.


Or in the case of Indiana, the Republican Secretary of State.
 
2013-02-08 02:52:02 PM  
When the GOP got their asses handed to them in '06, freepers claimed that the Dems only won via voter fraud.

Desperation: it's a stinky perfume.
 
2013-02-08 02:52:43 PM  
Ah yes, voter fraud, because voting is so sexy and desirable that the illegals and felons are wracking their brains to come up with a way they could beat the system so that they could have no impact on the process at all.
 
2013-02-08 02:55:51 PM  

bradkanus: Hey I'm with you - why would you take away the majority's rights and access because a very small percentave of the overall population breaks the rules?  It makes no sense to me.

So I'm sure you feel the same as I do about the assualt weapons ban proposed by Feinstein.  It's good to find common ground here.


Leaving aside the fact that the above is a clear red herring...

Define your terms: by 'majority', do you mean the majorities who clearly support an assault weapons ban, because the evidence is very clearly that the one thing that reduces gun crime is strict gun control? Or by 'majority' do you mean the 68% of the US population who don't own a single gun of any sort?

Because by that definition, the rights of the majority to be safe from mass shootings is being serially oppressed by a very vocal minority who own so many guns that they neither know nor care that all they are doing is regurgitating gun industry slogans.  This is especially heinous, given that the problem is worsening, their position is anachronistic, and is also out of step with every other developed country on Earth.

Point in fact, the assault weapons ban as written is a dead paper. It's not going anywhere. I'm not a fan of ideological stands, so no...I don't support it.

But nice try.
 
2013-02-08 02:57:16 PM  
Cliff Notes version: Democrats and black people! OOGA BOOGA!
 
2013-02-08 02:57:45 PM  
Even any these limited number of vote fraud cases - guess what wouldn't of prevented them?  Voter ID.
 
2013-02-08 02:58:39 PM  

bradkanus: whistleridge: bradkanus: nmrsnr: Ok, so if there were 19 cases in Hamilton County, OH, and Hamilton county voter turnout was 156,558, then that means that voter fraud could have, potentially, accounted for 0.012% of the vote.

Clearly this changes everything and we need to hold new elections.

HMM... so if less than one percent of the population breaks the law, it's really not a problem, right?

What percentage is 8,583 of 310,000,000?

A problem, yes. A reason to entirely reform the system in a way that will demonstrably disenfranchise far more people, no.

Hey I'm with you - why would you take away the majority's rights and access because a very small percentave of the overall population breaks the rules?  It makes no sense to me.

So I'm sure you feel the same as I do about the assualt weapons ban proposed by Feinstein.  It's good to find common ground here.


Okay, let's go with the "one percent" thing. One percent of gun-owning Americans own weapons that would be banned under the Feinstein ban. Those weapons account of 9% of all gun-related crime.
 
2013-02-08 02:59:22 PM  
But But ACORN
 
2013-02-08 03:00:57 PM  

bradkanus: Hmm... in the states where they did change election law to require a picture ID there was no evidence of disfranchisement.  In fact, the numbers went up accordingly to the national trend this last election. So you're wrong about that.


There is little evidence either way.  But voter ID solved no real problem that anyone was having.  Its an unnecessary regulation.  So why are you in favor of it again?  I guess you are just a type of guy who loves regulations.  Typical democrat.
 
2013-02-08 03:01:24 PM  
James O'Keefe will get right on this, as soon as he finds his masculinity and sees a real live naked woman for the first time.
 
2013-02-08 03:01:42 PM  
"Proven voter fraud, statistically, happens about as often as death by lightning strike."

Wrong.  Proven voter fraud has happened any time a vote for a Democrat is counted.

Shadow Blasko: There is no reason to go outside in Cincinnati anyway.

They roll the sidewalks up at 6pm, and you can only visit the Aronoff, Museum Center, and the Nation Underground Railroad guilt trip depression museum so many times.


Plus the air is brown and gives you bronchitis.
 
2013-02-08 03:02:39 PM  
The burning question no conservative is willing to ask: who benefits from vote fraud? Seriously, who is willing to risk a felony to pad a politician's total by one vote? The premise of vote fraud is completely absurd.
 
2013-02-08 03:02:46 PM  

whistleridge: bradkanus: Hey I'm with you - why would you take away the majority's rights and access because a very small percentave of the overall population breaks the rules?  It makes no sense to me.

So I'm sure you feel the same as I do about the assualt weapons ban proposed by Feinstein.  It's good to find common ground here.

Leaving aside the fact that the above is a clear red herring...

Define your terms: by 'majority', do you mean the majorities who clearly support an assault weapons ban, because the evidence is very clearly that the one thing that reduces gun crime is strict gun control? Or by 'majority' do you mean the 68% of the US population who don't own a single gun of any sort?

Because by that definition, the rights of the majority to be safe from mass shootings is being serially oppressed by a very vocal minority who own so many guns that they neither know nor care that all they are doing is regurgitating gun industry slogans.  This is especially heinous, given that the problem is worsening, their position is anachronistic, and is also out of step with every other developed country on Earth.

Point in fact, the assault weapons ban as written is a dead paper. It's not going anywhere. I'm not a fan of ideological stands, so no...I don't support it.

But nice try.


Uh - if you think that a crime isn't serious enough to warrant new law based on a statistical value in the overall picture of its existence, then you can't support a single new gun control measure.  Link to public opinion polls on guns, crime statistics that don't support the point you're trying to make (why did you do that anyway?)  - but that won't change the crux of your orginal argument - and that's the percentage of bad versus the number of good and guns fall into your numbers there.

That's the problem with putting a numeric value on a crime like that - it ruins your other arguments that are based on emotion.
 
2013-02-08 03:02:57 PM  

vernonFL: I was in Cincinnati once, it reminded me of Baltimore, but with more hills.


Pretty accurate depiction.

It does lacks the Inner Harbor but I guess that's what Newport in KY is for.
 
2013-02-08 03:04:33 PM  

GAT_00: Lost Thought 00: When it does happen, it usually requires a poll worker to be in on the fraud.

Or in the case of Indiana, the Republican Secretary of State.


It's not fraud when Republicans do it.

According to them, I committed fraud by not voting Republican AND voting for Obama and McCaskill.
 
2013-02-08 03:05:59 PM  

gingerjet: bradkanus: Hmm... in the states where they did change election law to require a picture ID there was no evidence of disfranchisement.  In fact, the numbers went up accordingly to the national trend this last election. So you're wrong about that.

There is little evidence either way.  But voter ID solved no real problem that anyone was having.  Its an unnecessary regulation.  So why are you in favor of it again?  I guess you are just a type of guy who loves regulations.  Typical democrat.


I'm not for new Voter ID laws. Where did you get that?  If you're going to argue with me, please use what you know of me and not what you assume of me.

My point about voter ID laws is that they were opposed because it was said that they'd disfranchise voters.  Well, they didn't.  And that killed that poster's specific argument.  I don't have to support Voter ID to admit it didn't keep people from voting.
 
2013-02-08 03:06:04 PM  
According to county documents, Richardson's absentee ballot was accepted on Nov. 1, 2012 along with her signature. On Nov. 11, she told an official she also voted at a precinct because she was afraid her absentee ballot would not be counted in time.

I would love for NRO to explain how voter ID would address this.

I'm guessing that's not forthcoming.
 
2013-02-08 03:06:45 PM  

nmrsnr: bradkanus: whistleridge: bradkanus: nmrsnr: Ok, so if there were 19 cases in Hamilton County, OH, and Hamilton county voter turnout was 156,558, then that means that voter fraud could have, potentially, accounted for 0.012% of the vote.

Clearly this changes everything and we need to hold new elections.

HMM... so if less than one percent of the population breaks the law, it's really not a problem, right?

What percentage is 8,583 of 310,000,000?

A problem, yes. A reason to entirely reform the system in a way that will demonstrably disenfranchise far more people, no.

Hey I'm with you - why would you take away the majority's rights and access because a very small percentave of the overall population breaks the rules?  It makes no sense to me.

So I'm sure you feel the same as I do about the assualt weapons ban proposed by Feinstein.  It's good to find common ground here.

Nice try, but that logic doesn't really work, and here's why:

Current level of voter fraud - does not affect election results
Proposed laws "fixing" the problem" - potentially changes election results due to massive disenfranchisement of eligible voters.

Current gun laws - lots of people dying
proposed future gun laws - fewer people dying

I am not for Feinstein's proposed ban (and as far as I hear it's DOA anyway) but you're comparison is flawed on its face.


Define a lot. Under .5% is a lot?

Second. The previous ban does not prove out your assertion of less deaths. In fact it had no statistical effect.
 
2013-02-08 03:07:51 PM  

Somacandra: Tell Me How My Blog Tastes: The absentee one.  Lots of times those aren't even counted if they can't affect the outcome of the race.

[i.imgur.com image 639x183]

Citation Needed. This IA policy is just an example, but I've never seen any Secretary of State's office that openly refused to count absentee ballots (as a matter of stated policy) that were properly submitted.


Same with Virginia.  Every vote is counted.  Period.
 
2013-02-08 03:08:49 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: According to county documents, Richardson's absentee ballot was accepted on Nov. 1, 2012 along with her signature. On Nov. 11, she told an official she also voted at a precinct because she was afraid her absentee ballot would not be counted in time.

I would love for NRO to explain how voter ID would address this.

I'm guessing that's not forthcoming.


I think their point was on the claim that voter fraud never happens, not that voter ID was the solution here (it is most definitely not).
 
2013-02-08 03:09:05 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: bradkanus: but that guy just said it's not a big deal since it's not a big number.

Statistically it isn't. It's in the noise.


Only if you assume these were the only instances of fraud. These were merely the ones caught. Some votes come down to a few hundred as well.
 
2013-02-08 03:09:05 PM  

gingerjet: Even any these limited number of vote fraud cases - guess what wouldn't of prevented them?  Voter ID.


Really?  Never heard of a fake ID?
 
2013-02-08 03:09:14 PM  
This is a scandal the size of which I haven't seen since Benghazi.
 
2013-02-08 03:09:15 PM  
Obama won Hamilton County by 2 percent and NRO thinks that 14 votes would've changed the outcome of the election?

I know, the next thing these tards are going to say is that "just imagine how many fradulent votes were casts that didn't get caught'.

Which in the eyes of the Republicans was 50% because that's how many of them voted for Obama and who in their right mind would vote for an American hating socialist like Obama over a decent red-blooded True American like Mitt Romney. Fraud could only be the possible answer for this outcome.
 
2013-02-08 03:09:32 PM  

bradkanus: HMM... so if less than one percent of the population breaks the law, it's really not a problem, right?


No, pretty much any and every law has a fraction of a percent breaking them. The fact that they were caught is a sign that the system is working as intended. If they were caught and no charges pressed, would mean it was a problem.
 
2013-02-08 03:09:43 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: According to county documents, Richardson's absentee ballot was accepted on Nov. 1, 2012 along with her signature. On Nov. 11, she told an official she also voted at a precinct because she was afraid her absentee ballot would not be counted in time.

I would love for NRO to explain how voter ID would address this.

I'm guessing that's not forthcoming.


Yeah - it's amazing how often the voter fraud cases they ARE able to cite aren't fixed by their solution.
 
Displayed 50 of 221 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report