7 ms·

Twisted things being done in our elections goes back to Tammany Hall. If you know where to look in American history it's not hard to find credible instances of

Twisted things being done in our elections goes back to Tammany Hall. If you know where to look in American history it's not hard to find credible instances of important elections having substantial amounts of fraud. Why do people believe that when the chips are down and vast amounts of money and power are at stake that people are simply going to play fair? Especially when the players are some of the most ruthless, narcissistic, and sociopathic people in America? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_United_States_Senate_election_in_Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_United_States_Senate_elec... >The validity of the runoff election was challenged before the US Supreme Court due to allegations of election fraud, and in later years, testimony by parties involved indicated that widespread fraud occurred and that friendly political machines[3] produced the fraudulent votes needed for Johnson to have a numerical majority, in effect stealing the election. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidential_election_in_Illinois https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_United_States_presidentia... > Some, including Republican legislators and journalists, believed that Kennedy benefited from vote fraud from Mayor Richard Daley's powerful Chicago political machine. [12] Mayor Daley’s machine was known for "delivering whopping Democratic tallies by fair means and foul."[13] Republicans tried and failed to overturn the results at the time—as well as in ten other states.[13] Some journalists also later claimed that mobster Sam Giancana and his Chicago crime syndicate "played a role" in Kennedy's victory. [13] Nixon's campaign staff urged him to pursue recounts and challenge the validity of Kennedy's victory, however, Nixon gave a speech three days after the election stating that he would not contest the election.[14]

xyzzyz 6y ago
This "Chicago political machine" was later shown to have committed voter fraud in 1982. 26 people were convicted[1], and here's the grand jury report[2]. They had been getting away with it, until they didn't. Fortunately, as media reassure us, today voting fraud simply cannot happen: you'd need a whole conspiracy of dozens of people, a real, as one could call it, machine. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Illinois_elections#Allegations_of_fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Illinois_elections#Allega... [2] - https://sites.duke.edu/pjms364s_01_s2016_jaydelancy/files/2016/04/Report-of-the-Special-Grand-Jury-US-District-Court-NE-Illinois-.pdf https://sites.duke.edu/pjms364s_01_s2016_jaydelancy/files/20...
- js2 6y ago
  Okay, here’s a non-media non-partisan source. What I’m linking to was written in 2007. This seems prescient: In the aftermath of a close election, losing candidates are often quick to blame voter fraud for the results. Legislators cite voter fraud as justification for various new restrictions on the exercise of the franchise. And pundits trot out the same few anecdotes time and again as proof that a wave of fraud is imminent. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/truth-about-voter-fraud https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/trut...
- btilly 6y ago
  Fortunately, as media reassure us, today voting fraud simply cannot happen: you'd need a whole conspiracy of dozens of people, a real, as one could call it, machine. This I find impossible to believe. How hard is it to intercept mail-in ballots, sign them, then mail them in? Who knows that you did so? I personally find it very implausible that in both elections that Trump was in he produced results about 3% better than polls indicated he would. And both times alleged that the other side was cheating. So much so that pollsters are engaged with asking how they are so wrong when Trump is on the ballot. You know the old saw that cheaters always accuse others of cheating? What does that suggest about Trump?
  - gwd 6y ago
    > How hard is it to intercept mail-in ballots, sign them, then mail them in? Who knows that you did so? Well first of all, the person who was supposed to get the mail-in ballot in the first place. In Michigan, you can check to see whether they've received your mail-in ballot. Don't you think that if 100k Republicans in Michigan didn't receive their ballot at all, but checked and found that they had been registered as having voted, we'd be hearing about that? > I personally find it very implausible that in both elections that Trump was in he produced results about 3% better than polls indicated he would. I find this highly suspicious too. In 2016 it might have been the "Shy Tory" effect, but the Trump voters in 2020 didn't seem at all shy to me.
    - disgruntledphd2 6y ago

xyzzyz 6y ago

This "Chicago political machine" was later shown to have committed voter fraud in 1982. 26 people were convicted[1], and here's the grand jury report[2]. They had been getting away with it, until they didn't. Fortunately, as media reassure us, today voting fraud simply cannot happen: you'd need a whole conspiracy of dozens of people, a real, as one could call it, machine. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Illinois_elections#Allegations_of_fraud https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Illinois_elections#Allega... [2] - https://sites.duke.edu/pjms364s_01_s2016_jaydelancy/files/2016/04/Report-of-the-Special-Grand-Jury-US-District-Court-NE-Illinois-.pdf https://sites.duke.edu/pjms364s_01_s2016_jaydelancy/files/20...

js2 6y ago
Okay, here’s a non-media non-partisan source. What I’m linking to was written in 2007. This seems prescient: In the aftermath of a close election, losing candidates are often quick to blame voter fraud for the results. Legislators cite voter fraud as justification for various new restrictions on the exercise of the franchise. And pundits trot out the same few anecdotes time and again as proof that a wave of fraud is imminent. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/truth-about-voter-fraud https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/trut...
btilly 6y ago
Fortunately, as media reassure us, today voting fraud simply cannot happen: you'd need a whole conspiracy of dozens of people, a real, as one could call it, machine. This I find impossible to believe. How hard is it to intercept mail-in ballots, sign them, then mail them in? Who knows that you did so? I personally find it very implausible that in both elections that Trump was in he produced results about 3% better than polls indicated he would. And both times alleged that the other side was cheating. So much so that pollsters are engaged with asking how they are so wrong when Trump is on the ballot. You know the old saw that cheaters always accuse others of cheating? What does that suggest about Trump?
- gwd 6y ago
  > How hard is it to intercept mail-in ballots, sign them, then mail them in? Who knows that you did so? Well first of all, the person who was supposed to get the mail-in ballot in the first place. In Michigan, you can check to see whether they've received your mail-in ballot. Don't you think that if 100k Republicans in Michigan didn't receive their ballot at all, but checked and found that they had been registered as having voted, we'd be hearing about that? > I personally find it very implausible that in both elections that Trump was in he produced results about 3% better than polls indicated he would. I find this highly suspicious too. In 2016 it might have been the "Shy Tory" effect, but the Trump voters in 2020 didn't seem at all shy to me.
  - disgruntledphd2 6y ago