5 ms·

You do not seem familiar with the definition of "election fraud" > Noun 1. election fraud - misrepresentation or alteration of the true results of an election

You do not seem familiar with the definition of "election fraud" > Noun 1. election fraud - misrepresentation or alteration of the true results of an election Yes, the DNC was in the bag for Clinton. That's hardly election fraud and doubtful would rise to the level of criminal activity, however distasteful.

mindslight 9y ago
It's odd to pick a narrow definition of "election fraud" and then assert that an instance of fraud that changed the result of an election doesn't qualify. The apparent presence of Bernie Sanders in the race definitely induced people to vote in the Democratic primary who otherwise wouldn't have. Otherwise, they could have either voted in a different primary or stayed home and registered their lack of support for the entire process.
- chillwaves 9y ago
  I'm not disagreeing, I just think it's a stretch to call it fraud.
  - mindslight 9y ago
    They materially benefited (voter participation, funding) through deception (the appearance of facilitating an impartial election). The only quibble I see is that there's a bit of responsibility laundering going as the individual states actually administer the primaries. But the DNC doesn't just provide the input to these primaries, but serves as the purpose for their administration. So it'd be a bit disingenuous to say the DNC has no responsibility to remain unbiased throughout the whole process. At any rate, I've been appealing to the wider concept of fraud only for its longstanding general applicability. We've got a de facto public institution that shows signs of blatant corruption, at direct odds with how they present themselves to the public. There are a myriad of anti-(corruption/conspiracy/etc) guilt-by-association laws that prosecutors generally have no compunction about using on organizations that smell fishy. If a private group ran a similarly-setup raffle, they would surely be under investigation - the lack of such prosecution is purely due to the connections of the people involved, and the larger issue that such behavior is just business as usual for the ruling class.
- djur 9y ago
  There was no fraud. The DNC emails show that staffers of the DNC disliked Sanders and strategized how to respond to his criticisms _of the DNC_. At the time those emails were written, Sanders had sued the DNC and had been publicly attacking them. One thing that does not appear in the emails anywhere is any hint that the DNC tried to manipulate the outcome of primaries or caucuses. That's what "election fraud" means.

mindslight 9y ago

It's odd to pick a narrow definition of "election fraud" and then assert that an instance of fraud that changed the result of an election doesn't qualify. The apparent presence of Bernie Sanders in the race definitely induced people to vote in the Democratic primary who otherwise wouldn't have. Otherwise, they could have either voted in a different primary or stayed home and registered their lack of support for the entire process.

chillwaves 9y ago
I'm not disagreeing, I just think it's a stretch to call it fraud.
- mindslight 9y ago
  They materially benefited (voter participation, funding) through deception (the appearance of facilitating an impartial election). The only quibble I see is that there's a bit of responsibility laundering going as the individual states actually administer the primaries. But the DNC doesn't just provide the input to these primaries, but serves as the purpose for their administration. So it'd be a bit disingenuous to say the DNC has no responsibility to remain unbiased throughout the whole process. At any rate, I've been appealing to the wider concept of fraud only for its longstanding general applicability. We've got a de facto public institution that shows signs of blatant corruption, at direct odds with how they present themselves to the public. There are a myriad of anti-(corruption/conspiracy/etc) guilt-by-association laws that prosecutors generally have no compunction about using on organizations that smell fishy. If a private group ran a similarly-setup raffle, they would surely be under investigation - the lack of such prosecution is purely due to the connections of the people involved, and the larger issue that such behavior is just business as usual for the ruling class.
djur 9y ago
There was no fraud. The DNC emails show that staffers of the DNC disliked Sanders and strategized how to respond to his criticisms _of the DNC_. At the time those emails were written, Sanders had sued the DNC and had been publicly attacking them. One thing that does not appear in the emails anywhere is any hint that the DNC tried to manipulate the outcome of primaries or caucuses. That's what "election fraud" means.