Friday, December 23, 2011

"No Vote Fraud. Nothing to See Here. Move Along"


Four New York Democrats pleaded guilty to voter fraud after they were caught forging signatures on absentee ballots in a 2009 primary election.

And those were the damnfools who got caught.

HT:  Gateway


Saint Revolution said...

Absolutely no f**ckin' mention of the "slap on the hand, pat on the ass" sanctions involved.

Probably have to work extra overtime hours at triple-pay taxpayer dollars.

Surprise, surprise. More government worker corruption.

Just keep it up, guys...nerves and patience are stretched mighty mighty thin...


Peruse other Saint Revolution Dad29 blog comments here.

neomom said...

Fraud is a feature, not a bug, of the system to the Dems

Jim said...

I'm sure a photo ID would have prevented this, though, huh?

neomom said...

It shouldn't be that easy to get an absentee ballot.

But maybe, Jim, I should put it to you this way.

I haven't lived in WI for 4 years. But I looked, and since states were prohibited from scrubbing voter roles by the Obama DoJ, and I am still registered to vote there. Maybe I should request an absentee ballot and vote for Scott Walker. Or would you rather some additional rules be in place?

Jim said...

First, if you were to do that, you would be guilty of a felony.

I don't have a problem with rules depending on what they do, what they are intended to do, and how they are enforced.

However, it takes "gummint" to carry out the rules in an effective and fair way. If caging is used, that is illegal and unfair. If one matches voter rolls against the census, that is another matter.

It takes research and legwork to clean up the voter rolls. Do you want to leave that to one party or the other? Do you want YOUR name removed (from where ever you live now) because your name is similar to someone in an obituary?

Still, none of this is prevented by photo ID laws.

jimspice said...

They should have the full force of the law come down on them for this. But to point to one example as evidence of widespread fraud is poor reasoning.

Dad29 said...

It's even WORSE reasoning to claim that there is "no appreciable vote fraud" (or similar) when most vote fraud--BY DESIGN--cannot be either detected, nor prosecuted.

It's like claiming that there is no "air" because, after all, we can't see it.

Dad29 said...

"....we can't see it..."

Except where the EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVil Republicans and industrialists have filled it with carbon filings and tinted CO2 emissions in an attempt to de-populate the Earth, thus depriving the EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVil industrialists of customers, of course.

(Written before JimSpice writes it.)

Anonymous said...

Right, makes perfect sense to me, to pass a law (Voter ID) that will prevent something that, by its very essence, is undetectable by its very nature. Yet, the link Dad29 provides is "proof" of such widespread fraud...that is undetectable. Such compelling "logic"!

Dad29 said...

Anony, your post makes no sense. That's good: it proves that you are a LeftOWacky. You can feel good tonight.

Anonymous said...

Dad29 says voter fraud is rampant, but undetectable. So there must be a Voter ID law to stop it. Why? Because evidence exists of fraud. Except fraud is generally done in secret, and in those cases where it is found, it only serves as proof that it is indeed widespread. Even though most fraud, by design, cannot be detected nor prosecuted. That is why there must be a Voter ID law.

See how nonsensical YOUR argument is? I'm only summarize YOUR RightOWacky reasoning. You can feel good tonight, and tomorrow, and the next day.

Laws exist currently to prosecute the offenders of voter fraud, voter misconduct, and voter registration malfeasance. Let's employ our current legislation to go after the "bad guys", regardless of political party.

neomom--Fraud is a feature, not a bug, of the system to the Dems.


neomom said...

Fraud can only be prosecuted if caught. Seeing as that me requesting a ballot would be a bit obvious, maybe anyway. How about a different scenario. I send my sister and her husband to our old polling place, they state the names and address of my husband and I, then they can vote for Scott Walker?

Dad29 said...

Even though most fraud, by design, cannot be detected nor prosecuted. That is why there must be a Voter ID law.

Yes, that IS the argument. Prevent known and unknown fraud by requiring identification.

On your planet, that might not work.

jimspice said...

"...cannot be either detected, nor prosecuted."

What? Are these fraudsters or magicians we're talking about here.

By your logic, I can make any hair-brained accusation, say, that our Governor participates in child live sacrifice, and saying so alone is proof positive. After all, it is BY DESIGN undetectable (he sacrifices only illegal immigrant children). You have no choice but to accept the impeccable logic.

It would be so refreshing to hear you say, "you know what? That WAS pretty dumb. I take it back." There is no shame in admitting error. In fact, most people, yourself included I suspect, respect that quality in a person.

Jim said...

Neomom: I send my sister and her husband to our old polling place, they state the names and address of my husband and I, then they can vote for Scott Walker?

So your sister and brother-in-law are willing to risk 3-1/2 years in prison and $10,000 each by going into the polling place and signing your name to the rolls? And since you are involved in a conspiracy with them, that would probably be the same penalties for you and your husband plus conspiracy. And what makes you think that the poll worker would not recognize that the voters are not you and your husband, or find your signatures not matching.

Come to think about, if your sister and husband voted at as themselves AND as you, that would be 1 count each multiple voting, 1 count each voter impersonation. So that's 7 years in prison and $20,000 each. Then conspiracy for them and conspiracy for you and voter fraud for you.

Just to keep Walker in office?

neomom said...

Get your undies untwisted Jim, I don't have any sisters in the vicinity of my former domicile. It is a hypothetical.

But, have you ever worked a polling place? You really think that the little old ladies that are working the binders know every person that lives in the precinct? I'm quite sure that they don't. I also don't remember having to sign my name in WI. Nope, walked into the local armory, stated my name and address, helped them find it in both binders, where they gave my little slip of paper with my number and sent me down the table to get my ballot. It is the "Honor System". The odds of someone getting caught voting for someone else is miniscule. It is also undectectable unless the real person comes in after (which happened in my precinct once), but without video surveillance, prosecutors have nothing.

Voter ID stops my hypothetical as well as illegals, non-citizens (college campuses anyone?) and dead people from voting. We had someone 124 years old vote in NC in 2010 - back from the grave! Actually over 2000 people over the age of 100 voted in NC in 2010. So yeah, fraud happens, it is difficult to catch and harder to prosecute.

Dad29 said...

Neomom---none are so blind as they who WILL not see.

neomom said...

Indeed, Dad.

Jim said...

And I was addressing your "hypothetical". At my polling place they compare signatures.

Tell me, does your driver's license have your citizenship status on it? Does it mention the felony from the last time you had your hypothetical sister vote in your place? Is your picture from before or after you had your roots touched up?

Jim said...

Why I LOVE the Interwebs:

I wanted to check on your 2000 voters over the age of 100 in NC item so I went to Google, naturally. It's TRUE, in 2010 over 2000 people aged 110 voted in NC. Amazingly enough in 2008 almost 2000 people aged 108 voted in NC. Isn't that an interesting coincidence?

Turns out, according to the General Counsel for the North Carolina State Board of Elections, that in years past, birth date was not required when registering. When those registration records were computerized, 1/1/1900 was entered as the default birth date. That's why you get a lot of 108 year-olds in 2008 and 110 year-olds in 2010.

So yeah, fraud happens

Apparently not in this case.