7 ms·

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 h

by 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
    If 50% of the country hates the president (rightly or wrongly) and much of the media argues that he's a bad person, and everyone who supports him are racists, then I could easily see people lying to pollsters. Like, the shy tory effect comes from a much less polarised election in the UK (the 1992 GE). That being said, I actually think that it was the likely voter models that messed up this year, given that turnout was so much higher than expected.
  - jcadam 6y ago
    1. Halt counting (or at least 'reporting') in critical swing states simultaneously. We all saw this happen. 2. Kick out poll watchers 3. Figure out how many votes your preferred candidate needs. 4. Examine the voter rolls and see who never turned in a ballot. 5. Fill in ballots for those people (and if you're in a rush, don't even bother to vote in any down-ballot races) and mix them in with the legitimate ballots. If you control a few key urban centers in a few key states - you can definitely pull this off. Given the behavior of the left over the last 4 years, I absolutely believe they did something like the above.
    - gwd 6y ago
      > Given what my extremely biased sources have told me about the behavior of the left over the last 4 years FTFY > Kick out poll watchers Were any poll watchers kicked out? Trump's claim that there weren't poll watchers in Pennsylvania all turned out to be false; their lawyer admitted in court that they actually had 19 observers in the room [1]. EDIT Meanwhile, the graphs in TFA shows that there are "bumps" in the curve, showing that Democratic-leaning counties had lower turnout in the 2016 election. This is consistent with the widespread reports of Republicans trying to suppress the vote in Democratic-leaning areas, of which [2] and [3] are more recent examples. [1] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trump-sues-to-halt-philadelphia-count-without-gop-observers-1 https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trump-sues-to-halt... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/01/north-carolina-voter-id-law-blocked-discriminatory https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/01/north-caroli... [3] https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/01/texas-drive-thru-votes-harris-county/ https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/01/texas-drive-thru-vot...
chillwaves 6y ago
How do you commit fraud on the national level?
- MagnumOpus 6y ago
  You don't need to. In the US you can lose the nation by 3 million votes as long as you win 3-4 swing states in the presidential or senate vote -- be it your brother making 538 votes disappear or your staffers creating 203 ballots with your name on it...
  - matwood 6y ago
    3-4 swing states is still a national level. You're also talking about 20k-100k type numbers. This isn't someone winning by 100 votes. What's funny about this situation is that Biden is on track to win most of these states by a larger margin than Trump did against Clinton. She did ask for a recount, but I don't remember her ever going on and on about fraud.
    - jbjohns 6y ago
      Not fraud but she did write an entire book blaming Russia, and a whole host of other things.
      - matwood 6y ago
        The big difference is that it's been clearly shown that Russia did interfere [1]. The arguable point is did Trump's campaign know and direct the interference? And if we're really talking about shaping elections, disinformation and voter suppression is the way to get it done. Once votes are cast, it's too hard to move enough in order to have any meaningful change. There are too many checks, rechecks, and processes in place to commit fraud at the scale needed for a large election. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...
        6y ago
benmmurphy 6y ago
That Wikipedia article is a bit weird because it says fraud allegations and 26 people indicted but no mention of convictions. However, the special grand jury report claims 58 people were convicted and it is very clear that an organised fraud had taken place. 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...
- Schiendelman 6y ago
  Update Wikipedia!
js2 6y ago
Of note: - Despite the scope of this fraud, it didn't alter the election outcome. - The bi-partisan checks and balances failed because the Republican party had insufficient strength in the areas of Chicago where the fraud occurred. - They got caught. - This was 40 years ago. It was novel for the FBI to use computers at the time to detect irregularities. In the states that Trump is currently contesting, the GOP controls either the legislature or the legislature and the Governorship. The GOP isn't going to let any precincts go unwatched in these states. Fraud isn't impossible, it's just impossible at a scale to change an election outcome and get away with it, especially the presidential election. One thing I find interesting is that one of the measures the GOP regularly calls for, voter IDs, wouldn't have prevented the fraud that occurred in Chicago in 1982. Meanwhile, the sorts of measures that would've prevented that fraud (bi-partisan administration of the voting process) don't suppress the vote.
- jeegsy 6y ago
  > Despite the scope of this fraud, it didn't alter the election outcome. Every time an AMERICAN says this, a bald eagle looses its wings.

by xyzzyz 6y ago

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
  If 50% of the country hates the president (rightly or wrongly) and much of the media argues that he's a bad person, and everyone who supports him are racists, then I could easily see people lying to pollsters. Like, the shy tory effect comes from a much less polarised election in the UK (the 1992 GE). That being said, I actually think that it was the likely voter models that messed up this year, given that turnout was so much higher than expected.
- jcadam 6y ago
  1. Halt counting (or at least 'reporting') in critical swing states simultaneously. We all saw this happen. 2. Kick out poll watchers 3. Figure out how many votes your preferred candidate needs. 4. Examine the voter rolls and see who never turned in a ballot. 5. Fill in ballots for those people (and if you're in a rush, don't even bother to vote in any down-ballot races) and mix them in with the legitimate ballots. If you control a few key urban centers in a few key states - you can definitely pull this off. Given the behavior of the left over the last 4 years, I absolutely believe they did something like the above.
  - gwd 6y ago
    > Given what my extremely biased sources have told me about the behavior of the left over the last 4 years FTFY > Kick out poll watchers Were any poll watchers kicked out? Trump's claim that there weren't poll watchers in Pennsylvania all turned out to be false; their lawyer admitted in court that they actually had 19 observers in the room [1]. EDIT Meanwhile, the graphs in TFA shows that there are "bumps" in the curve, showing that Democratic-leaning counties had lower turnout in the 2016 election. This is consistent with the widespread reports of Republicans trying to suppress the vote in Democratic-leaning areas, of which [2] and [3] are more recent examples. [1] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trump-sues-to-halt-philadelphia-count-without-gop-observers-1 https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trump-sues-to-halt... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/01/north-carolina-voter-id-law-blocked-discriminatory https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/01/north-caroli... [3] https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/01/texas-drive-thru-votes-harris-county/ https://www.texastribune.org/2020/11/01/texas-drive-thru-vot...

chillwaves 6y ago

How do you commit fraud on the national level?

MagnumOpus 6y ago
You don't need to. In the US you can lose the nation by 3 million votes as long as you win 3-4 swing states in the presidential or senate vote -- be it your brother making 538 votes disappear or your staffers creating 203 ballots with your name on it...
- matwood 6y ago
  3-4 swing states is still a national level. You're also talking about 20k-100k type numbers. This isn't someone winning by 100 votes. What's funny about this situation is that Biden is on track to win most of these states by a larger margin than Trump did against Clinton. She did ask for a recount, but I don't remember her ever going on and on about fraud.
  - jbjohns 6y ago
    Not fraud but she did write an entire book blaming Russia, and a whole host of other things.
    - matwood 6y ago
      The big difference is that it's been clearly shown that Russia did interfere [1]. The arguable point is did Trump's campaign know and direct the interference? And if we're really talking about shaping elections, disinformation and voter suppression is the way to get it done. Once votes are cast, it's too hard to move enough in order to have any meaningful change. There are too many checks, rechecks, and processes in place to commit fraud at the scale needed for a large election. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_United_States_elections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_20...
      - 6y ago

benmmurphy 6y ago

That Wikipedia article is a bit weird because it says fraud allegations and 26 people indicted but no mention of convictions. However, the special grand jury report claims 58 people were convicted and it is very clear that an organised fraud had taken place. 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...

Schiendelman 6y ago
Update Wikipedia!

js2 6y ago

Of note: - Despite the scope of this fraud, it didn't alter the election outcome. - The bi-partisan checks and balances failed because the Republican party had insufficient strength in the areas of Chicago where the fraud occurred. - They got caught. - This was 40 years ago. It was novel for the FBI to use computers at the time to detect irregularities. In the states that Trump is currently contesting, the GOP controls either the legislature or the legislature and the Governorship. The GOP isn't going to let any precincts go unwatched in these states. Fraud isn't impossible, it's just impossible at a scale to change an election outcome and get away with it, especially the presidential election. One thing I find interesting is that one of the measures the GOP regularly calls for, voter IDs, wouldn't have prevented the fraud that occurred in Chicago in 1982. Meanwhile, the sorts of measures that would've prevented that fraud (bi-partisan administration of the voting process) don't suppress the vote.

jeegsy 6y ago
> Despite the scope of this fraud, it didn't alter the election outcome. Every time an AMERICAN says this, a bald eagle looses its wings.