4 ms·

12? Possible. A few hundred? You're gonna have to produce some evidence.

by ttfkam 3y ago

Georgelemental 3y ago
Read the link: > And so far, Fund and von Spakovsky report, 177 people have been convicted -- not just accused, but convicted -- of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Another 66 are awaiting trial. "The numbers aren't greater," the authors say, "because the standard for convicting someone of voter fraud in Minnesota is that they must have been both ineligible, and 'knowingly' voted unlawfully." The accused can get off by claiming not to have known they did anything wrong. > > Still, that's a total of 243 people either convicted of voter fraud or awaiting trial in an election that was decided by 312 votes.
- ttfkam 3y ago
  You forgot a very important part of this equation: you have to commit fraud and get away with it undetected for it to be an issue. These folks were found to have voted when they shouldn't have, whether intentional or not. (And I do think intent should definitely come into play here, as it does in most areas of law.) But you and the Washington Examiner blithely skip over the part where the illegitimate votes were found out and dealt with. I NEVER said folks would never attempt to commit voter fraud. I asserted that the kinds of voter fraud associated with in-person voting were never successful even without stricter ID requirements. I asserted that large scale in-precinct ballot stuffing simply would not work. There is one area where someone could vote multiple times—or at least they could more than ten years ago. That was across state lines, where one casts their votes in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, etc. This however was solved ten years ago with the ERIC program, which allowed states to compare their voter rolls to detect federal voter fraud. So when a deeply red state like Louisiana declares their intent to dump ERIC while also championing stricter voter ID requirements, I think it appears clear to an objective observer that the primary concern isn't extra voters but rather who they're voting for. And that feels deeply un-American to me. https://www.npr.org/2023/06/04/1171159008/eric-investigation-voter-data-election-integrity https://www.npr.org/2023/06/04/1171159008/eric-investigation...
  - Georgelemental 3y ago
    In the Minnesota case, the felon voters did get away with it, for two years—long enough to potentially affect the results. The Minnesota Majority report on the felon votes was only released in 2010. I'm not alleging any fraud beyond the votes by felons, which we know happened because they were convicted in court.
- ttfkam 3y ago
  I took a closer look at your link and the book it references. Who knows? I could be in a bubble or just have missed important info about it. I'll readily admit, I do not hold The Washington Examiner in high regard for its journalistic integrity, and the book seemed like a typical partisan hatchet job. But I could be wrong. It's always important to examine where we're wrong, where our assumptions lead us astray. Here's where it went off the rails. > In the '08 campaign, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman was running for re-election against Democrat Al Franken. It was impossibly close; on the morning after the election, after 2.9 million people had voted, Coleman led Franken by 725 votes. > Franken and his Democratic allies dispatched an army of lawyers to challenge the results. After the first canvass, Coleman's lead was down to 206 votes. That was followed by months of wrangling and litigation. In the end, Franken was declared the winner by 312 votes. He was sworn into office in July 2009, eight months after the election. Would it surprise you to learn that the recount did not occur due to "Franken's army of lawyers" but instead because ALL ELECTIONS in Minnesota by Minnesota law MUST have a recount if the margin of victory is less than 0.5%? I certainly didn't get that important but if info from the Examiner or the passage quoted from the book. So where did Franken's extra votes come from? Thin air? The cemeteries? No. 953 absentee ballots had been mistakenly rejected. Not all of the absentee votes went to Franken of course, but enough did where the lead shifted. Was it a close race? Yes. Was it a contentious race? An eight-month saga to be sure. Did the election go through a far greater amount of scrutiny that most elections? Most definitely! Now ask yourself this question honestly: do you think the Washington Examiner and the book would have been this inflammatory in their description of events had Coleman won by 0.01%? Would they have called any legislation narrowly passed/rejected with Coleman's senate votes suspect or illegitimate? Answer: no. The Washington Examiner continues to be a partisan mouthpiece created solely because conservatives didn't like The Washington Post calling them out all the time. Same by the way for The New York Post regarding The New York Times. The names chosen were conspicuously close to the papers of record precisely because they wanted to muddy the waters. Just partisan wrangling? I think not. The WaPo and NYT both regularly issue corrections to their news reporting. Any news outlet will make mistakes, and any honest news outlet will issue corrections/retractions without having been legally required to do so, even if it materially subverts the original news report. If you can find three prominently-displayed and substantive corrections/retractions by The Washington Examiner that were not court-ordered, I will publicly apologize here and concede the point. For point of reference, public substantive corrections look like this: https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2021/troubling-corrections-at-the-washington-post-new-york-times-and-nbc-news/ https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2021/troubling-correctio...

12? Possible. A few hundred? You're gonna have to produce some evidence.

by ttfkam 3y ago

12? Possible. A few hundred? You're gonna have to produce some evidence.

Read the link: > And so far, Fund and von Spakovsky report, 177 people have been convicted -- not just accused, but convicted -- of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Another 66 are awaiting trial. "The numbers aren't greater," the authors say, "because the standard for convicting someone of voter fraud in Minnesota is that they must have been both ineligible, and 'knowingly' voted unlawfully." The accused can get off by claiming not to have known they did anything wrong. > > Still, that's a total of 243 people either convicted of voter fraud or awaiting trial in an election that was decided by 312 votes.

ttfkam 3y ago
You forgot a very important part of this equation: you have to commit fraud and get away with it undetected for it to be an issue. These folks were found to have voted when they shouldn't have, whether intentional or not. (And I do think intent should definitely come into play here, as it does in most areas of law.) But you and the Washington Examiner blithely skip over the part where the illegitimate votes were found out and dealt with. I NEVER said folks would never attempt to commit voter fraud. I asserted that the kinds of voter fraud associated with in-person voting were never successful even without stricter ID requirements. I asserted that large scale in-precinct ballot stuffing simply would not work. There is one area where someone could vote multiple times—or at least they could more than ten years ago. That was across state lines, where one casts their votes in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, etc. This however was solved ten years ago with the ERIC program, which allowed states to compare their voter rolls to detect federal voter fraud. So when a deeply red state like Louisiana declares their intent to dump ERIC while also championing stricter voter ID requirements, I think it appears clear to an objective observer that the primary concern isn't extra voters but rather who they're voting for. And that feels deeply un-American to me. https://www.npr.org/2023/06/04/1171159008/eric-investigation-voter-data-election-integrity https://www.npr.org/2023/06/04/1171159008/eric-investigation...
- Georgelemental 3y ago
  In the Minnesota case, the felon voters did get away with it, for two years—long enough to potentially affect the results. The Minnesota Majority report on the felon votes was only released in 2010. I'm not alleging any fraud beyond the votes by felons, which we know happened because they were convicted in court.
ttfkam 3y ago
I took a closer look at your link and the book it references. Who knows? I could be in a bubble or just have missed important info about it. I'll readily admit, I do not hold The Washington Examiner in high regard for its journalistic integrity, and the book seemed like a typical partisan hatchet job. But I could be wrong. It's always important to examine where we're wrong, where our assumptions lead us astray. Here's where it went off the rails. > In the '08 campaign, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman was running for re-election against Democrat Al Franken. It was impossibly close; on the morning after the election, after 2.9 million people had voted, Coleman led Franken by 725 votes. > Franken and his Democratic allies dispatched an army of lawyers to challenge the results. After the first canvass, Coleman's lead was down to 206 votes. That was followed by months of wrangling and litigation. In the end, Franken was declared the winner by 312 votes. He was sworn into office in July 2009, eight months after the election. Would it surprise you to learn that the recount did not occur due to "Franken's army of lawyers" but instead because ALL ELECTIONS in Minnesota by Minnesota law MUST have a recount if the margin of victory is less than 0.5%? I certainly didn't get that important but if info from the Examiner or the passage quoted from the book. So where did Franken's extra votes come from? Thin air? The cemeteries? No. 953 absentee ballots had been mistakenly rejected. Not all of the absentee votes went to Franken of course, but enough did where the lead shifted. Was it a close race? Yes. Was it a contentious race? An eight-month saga to be sure. Did the election go through a far greater amount of scrutiny that most elections? Most definitely! Now ask yourself this question honestly: do you think the Washington Examiner and the book would have been this inflammatory in their description of events had Coleman won by 0.01%? Would they have called any legislation narrowly passed/rejected with Coleman's senate votes suspect or illegitimate? Answer: no. The Washington Examiner continues to be a partisan mouthpiece created solely because conservatives didn't like The Washington Post calling them out all the time. Same by the way for The New York Post regarding The New York Times. The names chosen were conspicuously close to the papers of record precisely because they wanted to muddy the waters. Just partisan wrangling? I think not. The WaPo and NYT both regularly issue corrections to their news reporting. Any news outlet will make mistakes, and any honest news outlet will issue corrections/retractions without having been legally required to do so, even if it materially subverts the original news report. If you can find three prominently-displayed and substantive corrections/retractions by The Washington Examiner that were not court-ordered, I will publicly apologize here and concede the point. For point of reference, public substantive corrections look like this: https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2021/troubling-corrections-at-the-washington-post-new-york-times-and-nbc-news/ https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2021/troubling-correctio...