U.S. Supreme Court to hear case determining if states can count mail-in ballots that are received AFTER Election Day

Just re-posting your original claim, and bolding it.
Yes. They are more likely to have more voter fraud. They have more voters and people as a rule. They practice things in how voting occurs that can be shown to increase the ease and propensity of voter fraud being committed. We don't know what the overall rate of fraud actually is.




This article shows the problem with current analyses quite well, if not what they were aiming for


Here's one small example of why:


As a hypothetical, let's say state A sets the rate for matching signatures on a mail in ballot at having to be 80% of what the on-file signature looks like. State B sets their rate at If the ballot is signed, it's valid. What would be the rejection rate of those two states for signature mismatch? Would a serious mismatch in signatures between the file and one on the ballot indicate it could be fraudulent?
 
They keep a website to track it all. It's all onesy twosy stuff. We're a nation of 350 million - elections aren't going to be perfect.

It's statistically zilch.

The only reason anyone believes that there is any kind of massive fraud, or coordinated fraud, is because a pathological liar who hates losing said so. He said the same in 2016. He called 2012 a "sham."
It's known cases. In 1997 voter fraud changed the outcome of the mayoral race in Miami.


As but one example of how voter fraud can affect the outcome of an election.

Is this minor voter fraud?

 
Last edited:
Yes. They are more likely to have more voter fraud. They have more voters and people as a rule. They practice things in how voting occurs that can be shown to increase the ease and propensity of voter fraud being committed. We don't know what the overall rate of fraud actually is.




This article shows the problem with current analyses quite well, if not what they were aiming for


Here's one small example of why:


As a hypothetical, let's say state A sets the rate for matching signatures on a mail in ballot at having to be 80% of what the on-file signature looks like. State B sets their rate at If the ballot is signed, it's valid. What would be the rejection rate of those two states for signature mismatch? Would a serious mismatch in signatures between the file and one on the ballot indicate it could be fraudulent?

You didn't say they were "more likely."

You said they had the most fraud.

This is getting boring.
 
Last edited:
They keep a website to track it all. It's all onesy twosy stuff. We're a nation of 350 million - elections aren't going to be perfect.

It's statistically zilch.

The only reason anyone believes that there is any kind of massive fraud, or coordinated fraud, is because a pathological liar who hates losing said so. He said the same in 2016. He called 2012 a "sham."
My main issue with the 2020 elections is state courts changed the times and dates of election laws (like allowing the counting of late ballots) and that is something the constitution ONLY allows the state legislatures to do. Clearly our election laws were corrupted.
 
My main issue with the 2020 elections is state courts changed the times and dates of election laws (like allowing the counting of late ballots) and that is something the constitution ONLY allows the state legislatures to do. Clearly our election laws were corrupted.

I have no issue w/ people who have an issue w/ that. It's legit.

It's not generally what Trump claimed, or what a much of the lie of 2020 has been built on.
 
I have no issue w/ people who have an issue w/ that. It's legit.

It's not what Trump claimed, or what a much of the lie of 2020 has been built on.
He absolutely DID claim exactly that. But our gutless SCOTUS refused to hear the case. After the Bush Gore thing they can't run from election cases fast enough.
 
He absolutely DID claim exactly that. But our gutless SCOTUS refused to hear the case. Afted the Bush Gore thing they can't run from election cases fast enough.

Yeah, I fixed it. It wasn't his general claim - it was part of the laundry list.

He really grabbed onto anything & everything. Really, he just doesn't like losing. Like I said - he claimed the same in 2016, just because he hated losing the popular.
 
LBJ commented voter fraud in Texas to win state office.
Unlike murder or bank robbery where there is an identifiable victim, physical evidence, etc., with voter fraud these things can be difficult to identify and collect. It makes for a situation where fraud can go easily undetected. Going off just the known cases, we can't be anywhere close to sure that it isn't actually occurring.

I linked this case here:


100,000 fraudulent ballots cast in an election in Chicago Illinois in 1982. It would likely have gone undetected if an insider to the fraud didn't turn the ringleader and others involved in out of spite and anger.
 
It's known cases. In 1997 voter fraud changed the outcome of the mayoral race in Miami.


As but one example of how voter fraud can affect the outcome of an election.

Is this minor voter fraud?

Now if we just had voter ID maybe it would be harder to cheat and easier to catch cheaters.
. :bigthink:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top