Interesting quote regarding vote fraud/foulplay

[tfurrh]

Josh Lowry, co-founder of www.RonPaulForums.com, @ 135:07 regarding the 2008 NH primary - "I don't trust the voting machines"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIcIkoOwp7s

Edit: because I think people are missing my point. I, and several others, agree with Josh Lowry, but when we express the same sentiment on RPF, we get scolded for jeopardizing the whole RPF community.

[unknown]

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

[tfurrh]

So....no one wants to tin-foil-hat-bash Josh Lowry?

[unknown]

So....no one wants to tin-foil-hat-bash Josh Lowry?

Why would there be bashing? Its a fact...



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEzY2tnwExs

[carterm]

BUMP. i got lost in this video. especially the end. KEEP FIGHTING

[sailingaway]

So....no one wants to tin-foil-hat-bash Josh Lowry?

He's not entitled to a personal opinion?

[The Gold Standard]

So....no one wants to tin-foil-hat-bash Josh Lowry?

Why? Do you trust the voting machines? I would think that makes you look more foolish than Josh Lowry.

[kathy88]

Why on earth would you cal Josh out?

[tfurrh]

lol. at you guys, Sailing & Gold Standard.


He's not entitled to a personal opinion?

Of course he is, but when I or others say the same thing, we get called stupid, and told that we make everyone on RPF look stupid.


Why? Do you trust the voting machines? I would think that makes you look more foolish than Josh Lowry.

No, I don't trust the voting machines, but when I or others say the same thing, we get called stupid, and told that we make everyone on RPF look stupid.


Why on earth would you cal Josh out?

I agree with Josh. But as others have insinuated, our mutual opinion is not stupid, and does not make everyone on RPF look stupid.

[tfurrh]

...

[kathy88]

Regardless, just creating dissention purposely is childish. Waaaa Josh can say it and I can't...

[Boss]

He's not entitled to a personal opinion?

I think tfurrh was being sarcastic

[tfurrh]

Regardless, just creating dissention purposely is childish. Waaaa Josh can say it and I can't...

Nothing wrong with a reality check.

[cdc482]

After the Nevada results, it's a little hard to trust the voting results...

[tttppp]

As I've said hundreds of times, the elections should be audited.

[sailingaway]

Nothing wrong with a reality check.

He didn't post it on the board.

[tfurrh]

He didn't post it on the board.
Still nothing wrong with it, Sailing.

[doctorfunk]

I think there is always minimal fraud in elections. It can easily be overcome by getting more supporters to vote. Complaining about it makes us look like sore losers and conspiracy theorists.

[donnay]

Josh Lowry, co-founder of www.RonPaulForums.com, @ 135:07 regarding the 2008 NH primary - "I don't trust the voting machines"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BIcIkoOwp7s

Edit: because I think people are missing my point. I, and several others, agree with Josh Lowry, but when we express the same sentiment on RPF, we get scolded for jeopardizing the whole RPF community.

Thank you so much for posting this! +rep

I agree with Josh too! I will go a little further and say I not only do not trust the voting machines, but I don't trust the system.

The awaking is happening. More people are seeing it rather than sitting in denial!!!

[unknown]

I think there is always minimal fraud in elections. It can easily be overcome by getting more supporters to vote. Complaining about it makes us look like sore losers and conspiracy theorists.

Youre right, discussing reality is stupid.

[cdc482]

I think there is always minimal fraud in elections. It can easily be overcome by getting more supporters to vote. Complaining about it makes us look like sore losers and conspiracy theorists.
good point

[ItsTime]

I think there is always minimal fraud in elections. It can easily be overcome by getting more supporters to vote. Complaining about it makes us look like sore losers and conspiracy theorists.

Just get on the train, don't want to question things, just hop on I am sure everything will be alright.

[Liberty74]

And that is no doubt how Harry Reid won in 2010 when he was down by 5 points in every poll yet wins by 5 points. A 10 point swing? Union control of voting machines where people reported early that when they voted for Sharon, Harry's name was lit up - I call that a malfunction in the rigged election. FRAUD!

[devil21]

After the Nevada debacle, I'm convinced there's fraud going on to suppress Dr. Paul's votes. Did it happen in prior contests? Maybe. But Nevada solidified it in my mind. I knew they would play games if Paul started gaining momentum but as much as it's damaging to claim fraud at every poor showing, it's just as damaging to ignore the realities of politics and suppress the notion that fraud occurs. Nevada should have been the last straw for anyone on the fence about whether fraud is occuring in this election.

[doctorfunk]

Just get on the train, don't want to question things, just hop on I am sure everything will be alright.
For the most part, the polls have been pretty accurate. They have also gone both ways, in some states we overperform and others we don't do as well. Using anecdotal evidence, it's been shown that we have a hard time getting supporters to register and vote. That's not because of fraud, that's because often times RP pushes the movement more than his candidacy. He spends more time educating people than asking them to register and vote. Trying to blame our results on voter fraud undermines everything we're working toward and gives credability to the notion that many RP supporters are "out there."

[LibertyEagle]

It doesn't make us look bad when we have solid proof and show it. It does make us look bad when we start multiple threads claiming there was vote fraud and show no proof of that claim, on election nights when we are badly losing.

Just my opinion.

[Student Of Paulism]

And that is no doubt how Harry Reid won in 2010 when he was down by 5 points in every poll yet wins by 5 points. A 10 point swing? Union control of voting machines where people reported early that when they voted for Sharon, Harry's name was lit up - I call that a malfunction in the rigged election. FRAUD!

Yep..i seen a recent vid, about a woman investigating those horrible machines and she recorded it on video. She went to the place where the machines where being unloaded into some garage before the election (i think the FEC/State Party) were setting them up before the candidates campaign arrived. She asked someone if she could test them out and they actually let her and she said when she pushed a button to vote, a different name come up than the one she wanted or something. So yea, this goes on constantly. These machines really need to go, they are just so terrible. Many expert programmers have said they can be easily hacked and coded to sway votes very easily, some of which are tied into a central machine that will 'correct' any 'errors' from the machines the people use. So even if the machines are checked out thoroughly, a central one they are all tied to will readjust the vote.

Just seen Rand on freedom watch btw too, and Judge asked him about the crap in NV. Rand mentioned that last time in 08 they had boxes of votes that were put into a vault in a casino, and were never checked until 4 years later. Seriously, wtf!!?!? FOUR YEARS LATER? Hell, at that point, why even bother? Yea, lets wait to count the vote LONG AFTER the process is over and the president gets elected.

Im telling you, 1776....only a matter of time before it comes back. It's just beyond ridiculous now.

Go to 3:34 (unless you want to hear about his new amendments to the Lacey Act too)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvIHAPjNnPk

[tfurrh]

It doesn't make us look bad when we have solid proof and show it. It does make us look bad when we start multiple threads claiming there was vote fraud and show no proof of that claim, on election nights when we are badly losing.

Just my opinion.

Ok. Lets get some facts. We all smell a skunk. Lets do some work.

How do we get in touch with Nick Spanos and find out how many 'yes's' there were for NV in the phone from home bank?

[sailingaway]

It doesn't make us look bad when we have solid proof and show it. It does make us look bad when we start multiple threads claiming there was vote fraud and show no proof of that claim, on election nights when we are badly losing.

Just my opinion.

I agree with this. Of course fraud exists from time to time, but accusing people without proof because you don't like an outcome does more harm than good. If you have proof, that is a different matter.

[sailingaway]

Ok. Lets get some facts. We all smell a skunk. Lets do some work.

How do we get in touch with Nick Spanos and find out how many 'yes's' there were for NV in the phone from home bank?

the campaign apparently told Ben Swann they saw no sign of fraud, that some people just didn't show up, including people the person saying this said they considered friends. Did you see Ben Swann's facebook?

[goldpants]

After the Nevada debacle, I'm convinced there's fraud going on to suppress Dr. Paul's votes. Did it happen in prior contests? Maybe. But Nevada solidified it in my mind. I knew they would play games if Paul started gaining momentum but as much as it's damaging to claim fraud at every poor showing, it's just as damaging to ignore the realities of politics and suppress the notion that fraud occurs. Nevada should have been the last straw for anyone on the fence about whether fraud is occuring in this election.

The people who disagree with you must believe The Revolutionary War was won by votes and playing by the rules. Wake the help up people, we the awaken people of America are at war with the establishment. We didn't declare this war but we best decide to defend ourselves before it is too late.

[tfurrh]

the campaign apparently told Ben Swann they saw no sign of fraud, that some people just didn't show up, including people the person saying this said they considered friends. Did you see Ben Swann's facebook?

Yes, but the Camp said that to the media. They're not going to broadcast it if they're looking into foulplay until they're holding all the aces they need. I did see the thread regarding Ben Swann, but I don't have a facebook, Sailing. Btw, did you get my PM?

[sailingaway]

Yes, but the Camp said that to the media. They're not going to broadcast it if they're looking into foulplay until they're holding all the aces they need. I did see the thread regarding Ben Swann, but I don't have a facebook, Sailing. Btw, did you get my PM?

I did but it was too full of insults to respond to, I thought.

[gerryb]

You can't cheat in a caucus without it being obvious the second you report bad numbers!!!

What is so hard about this?

[donnay]

I agree with this. Of course fraud exists from time to time, but accusing people without proof because you don't like an outcome does more harm than good. If you have proof, that is a different matter.

"Of course fraud exists from time to time"--but not this time? In Iowa there was proof, and Santorum was like, yeah well, okay, yay I won. NH an undercover video exposed how easily a dead person can vote! It was brought out in MSM that South Carolina that dead people were voting there too!

How do we get proof when primary states have Diebold optical scanners which have been demonstrated and proven, by one of the best hackers, that the memory cards can be tampered with, without anyone else knowing except the people who want the elections rigged!! How much more proof do you need?

[sailingaway]

this was a caucus with paper ballots

[donnay]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVfMSULS6kE&feature=fvst

[gerryb]

this was a caucus with paper ballots

Bingo.

You can't cheat in a caucus(If even 1 person per precinct cares). Votes are counted with representatives from the campaigns there(if they have one). The results are reported to the state. If the state reports the wrong number, the campaign just challenges it b/c they know what the correct count is....

[donnay]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRa_SlbUUEs&feature=related

[donnay]

Here's a flash back:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAJk79i64xQ&feature=related

[donnay]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4FPuLNjvAc&feature=related

[donnay]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdzlnwWsAAU&feature=related

[donnay]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_rMpQKqZhM&feature=related


You need any more proof?

[bobburn]

When you claim voter fraud in caucus, when the votes were counted in front of Ron Paul supporters and others that say it was legit, you look ridiculous. Is there a possibility? Yes. However, when the people who are actually caucusing and the campaign say there was no sign of fraud, there is no reason for armchair politicos to scream "FRAUD!!"

[awake]

Robert Wenzel

Nevada GOP Chairwoman Resigns Over Primary Vote Irregularities (http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/02/nevada-gop-chairwoman-resigns-over.html)

Is Ron Paul getting pushed away from the Republican nomination by fraudulent counts? The Examminer's Jeffrey Phelps has the story (http://www.examiner.com/conspiracy-in-denver/nevada-vote-fraud-official):
As if anyone who’s been paying attention over the last few weeks is actually surprised, another caucus state is taken down by GOP officials, permanently altering the outcome of yet another election, rendering its results forever in question.

This time, however, the people of Nevada are the immediate victims of mounting state GOP scandals, as the historical “First in the West” Nevada Caucus has been officially rendered a fraud, and the unwitting citizens and voters are once again left holding the bag.

So far, the overall magnitude of the circumstances has gone largely unnoticed by the people of the US in general, but that didn’t deter NV GOP Chairwoman, Amy Tarkanian from filing her resignation t (http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/feb/05/vote-count-gop-caucus-continuing-nevadas-largest-c/)he very next morning on Sunday, as obvious and rampant, widespread election fraud is sweeping through the country in an establishment elite attempt to hide the real results, in favor of a pre-chosen candidate, despite the wishes of the American people.

Very similar to the circumstances that played out in Iowa (http://www.examiner.com/conspiracy-in-denver/iowa-vote-fraud-official)just weeks ago, also forcing a state GOP official there to recently submit his own resignation (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/31/matt-strawn-iowa-gop-chairman-resigns-_n_1244186.html), precincts across the state of Nevada are now coming up with mismatching numbers, missing votes, and ultimately and permanently unverifiable results, rendering the entire United States 2012 election process a total failure and, so far, unrecoverable....

Amazingly, as state after state is ransacked by establishment backed party officials, as Romney continues to benefit from all the pre-meditated mayhem, the establishment’s media continues to act as if nothing whatsoever is happening and everything is under control, as if all this has been the plan all along.

Breaking the story of Chairwoman, Tarkanian’s resignation, while trying to be as quiet about it as possible, The Nevada Sun did their very best to spin the circumstances and cleverly word the story, attempting to leave the reader with the impression that everything was going to be ok, when the actual reality of the circumstances is obviously quite dire.

As it turns out, just as in Iowa, the likelihood that Ron Paul should have actually been the winner is very high. Not only did CNN show live coverage of a special late evening vote count in a populated Las Vegas precinct that had Ron Paul winning by almost 60%, statistics are showing that Ron Paul may have actually won the entire caucus by approx. the same margin, had in not been for another round of State GOP election fraud that is seemingly never going to be address by the powers that be, for obvious reasons.

There was even a CNN videotaped situation outside of that same precinct that had event staff attempting to prevent a Ron Paul supporter from entering the premises, seemingly so he couldn’t assure a fair results count.

Perhaps the most obvious aspect of the situation, however, may be the fact that Nevada is a known Libertarian state, Ron Paul has basically campaign there since his last attempt at the white house, his numbers have almost doubled in every state since then, yet Nevada state GOP ‘officials’ expect everyone to believe he actually received fewer votes there in 2012 than he did in 2008?

The situation has become so desperate for the American People and the rule of law, even the historically very humble and quiet Ron Paul should consider coming forward to cry foul. Something he has yet to do, largely because he came so close to winning in Iowa, despite GOP state officials rigging the outcome for Romney…then Santorum.

He also knew he’d be targeted by that same establishment’s media and ridiculed as a conspiracy theorist, if he tried speaking out against what should be obvious if it were actually handled honestly by the media, both locally and nationally.

It’s now become so obvious that the establishment will do anything to rig the results they are even willing to do it openly, even in caucus states that have paper ballots that are harder to hide.

[awake]

I am sorry , but the system of democracy eventually has to be put down by those who need to gain more control. It becomes necessary in a 'lesser of two evils' outcome to maintain control in a spiral of crises that interventionism creates. That is how we slide on the slippery slope. Democracy will eventually take on an empty facade as it does in many thugaucracies throughout the world. Mubarak was held in place by whom?

Vote rigging is a real thing. The conspiracy label is not applicable here.

[sailingaway]

I am sorry , but the system of democracy eventually has to be put down by those who need to gain more control. It becomes necessary in a 'lesser of two evils' to maintain control in the spiral of crises that interventionism creates. That is how we slide on the slippery slope. Democracy will eventually take on an empty facade as it does in many thugaucracies throughout the world. Mubarak was held in place by whom?

Vote rigging is a real thing. The conspiracy label is not applicable here.

That article you posted is kinda sensationalistic. Tarkanian's resignation was long before to take effect the day after the primary, because her husband was going to run for office and her holding the position was considered a conflict, for example.

There IS such a thing as voter fraud, and say the guy who drove off without counting the ballots and took them behind a gate of a gated community -- that was a problem. Unfortunately, it was in Clark county where Ron generally beat Gingrich so when (if?) they through it out, it doubtless hurt Ron.

[donnay]

When you claim voter fraud in caucus, when the votes were counted in front of Ron Paul supporters and others that say it was legit, you look ridiculous. Is there a possibility? Yes. However, when the people who are actually caucusing and the campaign say there was no sign of fraud, there is no reason for armchair politicos to scream "FRAUD!!"

First off who are you talking to?

For me, I am no armchair politico (whatever that means?). I seen it up close and personal. In 2008, I witnessed the sham of a primary in New Hampshire with my own two eyes. The Paul Campaign then said they didn't see any sign of fraud, so the Ron Paul supporters raise the money to have a re-count. We found a lot of irregularities, throughout the whole thing. As far as proof, we had none. Again, NH has optical scanners that count the ballots, unless we had people who knew how to deal with memory cards, that were NEVER produced for the re-count there is no proof. All we had were a bunch of ballots in dilapidated boxes with state seals that could be lifted off and replaced on the box like a post-it note. Instead of the state police going to each town and picking up the boxes, as it should have been, we had two guys we called "Butch and Hoppy" running around the state to collect the ballots--with absolutely no oversight whatsoever.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek2rXxFEzWI&feature=results_main&playnext=1&list=PL5118856D9B3D38DD


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MqJCm38MEuU

[gerryb]

donnay, not a single one of your posts is applicable to a caucus. Your argument is invalid.

[John F Kennedy III]

It's good to know the owner of this site has a functioning brain.

[John F Kennedy III]

You can't cheat in a caucus without it being obvious the second you report bad numbers!!!

What is so hard about this?

What's so hard about it is it's not true.

[gerryb]

What's so hard about it is it's not true.

Do you understand how a caucus works?

Tell me exactly where someone is going to cheat, and it won't be caught, if there is a single person who cares in attendance at that precinct.

[John F Kennedy III]

Bingo.

You can't cheat in a caucus(If even 1 person per precinct cares). Votes are counted with representatives from the campaigns there(if they have one). The results are reported to the state. If the state reports the wrong number, the campaign just challenges it b/c they know what the correct count is....

Yes you can cheat a caucus. I don't understand why so many people around here insist on spewing filth about how fair and just the establishment is.

Freedom is slavery.

[John F Kennedy III]

donnay, not a single one of your posts is applicable to a caucus. Your argument is invalid.

You're delusional.

[gerryb]

You're delusional.

Care to elaborate?

Where exactly can you find an electronic voting machine at a NV caucus?

[John F Kennedy III]

Do you understand how a caucus works?

Tell me exactly where someone is going to cheat, and it won't be caught, if there is a single person who cares in attendance at that precinct.

Lol. Why do you insist on denying reality?

[John F Kennedy III]

Care to elaborate?

Where exactly can you find an electronic voting machine at a NV caucus?

The failure in your assumption is that you assume electronic voting machines are needed in order for fraud to happen.

[acptulsa]

'More men have been elected between sundown and sunup than ever were elected between sunup and sundown.'--Will Rogers


"I hope some of the men who got the most votes get elected."--Will Rogers

I think we need to address this issue or we're going to lose this thing. I think it desperately needs to be dealt with.


Do you understand how a caucus works?

Tell me exactly where someone is going to cheat, and it won't be caught, if there is a single person who cares in attendance at that precinct.

Have you seen the thread on this very subject in Nevada on this very forum right now? It is getting caught, and you haven't even noticed. If you haven't noticed, what makes you think Mr. and Mrs. America are noticing?

[gerryb]

Have you seen the thread on this very subject in Nevada on this very forum right now? It is getting caught, and you haven't even noticed. If you haven't noticed, what makes you think Mr. and Mrs. America are noticing?

Which thread? There is only one that has touched on the right issue out of the dozen or so threads created.

[John F Kennedy III]

I think we need to address this issue or we're going to lose this thing. I think it desperately needs to be dealt with.



Have you seen the thread on this very subject in Nevada on this very forum right now? It is getting caught, and you haven't even noticed. If you haven't noticed, what makes you think Mr. and Mrs. America are noticing?

+rep

[devil21]

Bingo.

You can't cheat in a caucus(If even 1 person per precinct cares). Votes are counted with representatives from the campaigns there(if they have one). The results are reported to the state. If the state reports the wrong number, the campaign just challenges it b/c they know what the correct count is....

Even the precincts that CNN was covering live on camera didn't have campaign reps watching the vote count. The one scene where it's only two Romney supporting ladies not even watching what's going on, yet calling themselves vote watchers on camera, proves your argument questionable. You make a big assumption that there actually is a single person in each precinct that cares to observe the vote count for the precinct. This is aside from the fact that they wouldn't even count the votes in front of the voters. Is this evidence of fraud? No, but it doesnt mean that you can't cheat in a caucus.

[gerryb]

Even the precincts that CNN was covering live on camera didn't have campaign reps watching the vote count. The one scene where it's only two Romney supporting ladies not even watching what's going on, yet calling themselves vote watchers on camera, proves your argument questionable. You make a big assumption that there actually is a single person in each precinct that cares to observe the vote count for the precinct. This is aside from the fact that they wouldn't even count the votes in front of the voters. Is this evidence of fraud? No, but it doesnt mean that you can't cheat in a caucus.

Bolded the key point. That is the assumption. If we don't have people who want to ensure their vote is counted, why even vote? In a caucus there is no excuse. In a primary, there are plenty of excuses(early voting in some areas goes on for days, polls are open 12 hours, etc.)

Your second point, that they wouldn't count the vote in front of voters.. all someone had to do was stand up and make a motion to either a) have a representative from each candidate nominated to witness the count. If that isn't enough for you, motion to have it counted at a table at the front of the room.

[devil21]

^^^^^^
All that is well and good but it doesn't prove that you can't cheat in a caucus. It only proves that you can't cheat if everyone is playing their part to ensure a fair and accurate election, which we know does not happen.

[gerryb]

^^^^^^
All that is well and good but it doesn't prove that you can't cheat in a caucus. It only proves that you can't cheat if everyone is playing their part to ensure a fair and accurate election, which we know does not happen.

And that is EXACTLY what I have been saying!

ONE person needs to care in the precinct.
If one single person cared, there would not be any cheating that anyone could get away with.

[donnay]

donnay, not a single one of your posts is applicable to a caucus. Your argument is invalid.

Gerry you missed post #37

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?359360-Interesting-quote-regarding-vote-fraud-foulplay/page4

Of course here are some others if you are ONLY interested in the caucus fraud:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_egrN_ateQ


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEgALK8N31E&feature=player_embedded#!

Boots on the ground:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtZdQviFYqY&feature=related

[devil21]

And that is EXACTLY what I have been saying!

ONE person needs to care in the precinct.
If one single person cared, there would not be any cheating that anyone could get away with.

You sure that's what you've been saying? Your posts on this thread started out claiming essentially that fraud in caucus states is impossible.


You can't cheat in a caucus without it being obvious the second you report bad numbers!!!

What is so hard about this?

Yes, you can and in the case of Nevada, just don't report them at all until you "recount" as many times as necessary to get the results you want.

[sailingaway]

My point is a little different than gerryb's. I know there were 20 extra votes put in to Iowa's before they certified it, and a Ron Paul supporter called them out. It made the 'win' go to Romney instead of Santorum, and clearly NOT being biased for Santorum, our guy was able to show he had posted the correct numbers when he got home to his facebook and that the wrong numbers were a higher number than the caucus had in attendance. As a result the count was redone and Santorum got the win. It did make me wonder about the two counties Ron lost narrowly to Romney by a handful of votes which had shown at 100% and which flipped to Romney AFTER that point, apparently on a recount.

I also saw tweets at the time watching the caucus results informally come in for Nevada where one person with the ballots did NOT count them per protocol in Clark county, left with them in his car, outside the view of the vote watcher and went into a gated community where he couldn't be followed. When later challenged he said he wanted to get a drink and 'go to hell'. Something could have been done to the ballots, or it could have just been done to intentionally get them thrown out.

More could have been done, sort of in the margins of the numbers.

But just like saying 'I was robbed' about a call in sports where you disagree with the ref but there is no replay available, it doesn't help us, and makes us look bad, imho, if we don't have proof and have a vested interest in the results. So I would be all for having proof, and all for backing the campaign if they challenge anything, but I personally don't know that it is helpful for us to push it if we don't have evidence to make a case. They SAID there were fishy precincts and they threw them out. The problem was, that process of throwing them out, being Clark county results where Ron did better than Gingrich likely to some measure hurt Ron in closing the gap behind Gingrich. But in the absence of proof of exactly what happened, I just don't see any percentage in making a stink.

Someone maybe in this thread said the only answer is to make sure it's a landslide, in the future. I don't know what to add to that.

[gerryb]

You sure that's what you've been saying? Your posts on this thread started out claiming essentially that fraud in caucus states is impossible.
Quote it. They have all said the same exact thing as my last post. You can't cheat, without it going unnoticed, if even one person cares.

Not a single post in the 12 threads mentioned any facts on what purported fraud had occurred.



Yes, you can and in the case of Nevada, just don't report them at all until you "recount" as many times as necessary to get the results you want. And seven pages in(and 12 or so other threads, only one of which deals with this), we have the first instance of a productive argument.

And it goes right into what you quoted me saying earlier.


Originally Posted by gerryb
You can't cheat in a caucus without it being obvious the second you report bad numbers!!!

[devil21]

I did quote it. It's the same argument you quoted! You keep bouncing back and forth between what proof there is of fraud and whether fraud in a caucus is even possible. Two entirely different topics! I'm explaining how caucus fraud is entirely possible. I can't discuss it with you when you keep moving the goal posts of the debate.

[John F Kennedy III]

Bolded the key point. That is the assumption. If we don't have people who want to ensure their vote is counted, why even vote? In a caucus there is no excuse. In a primary, there are plenty of excuses(early voting in some areas goes on for days, polls are open 12 hours, etc.)

Your second point, that they wouldn't count the vote in front of voters.. all someone had to do was stand up and make a motion to either a) have a representative from each candidate nominated to witness the count. If that isn't enough for you, motion to have it counted at a table at the front of the room.

You're assuming they would comply with the request.

[gerryb]

You're assuming they would comply with the request.

The motion could always be voted down. But only if a majority in the precinct didn't want a transparent process.

[donnay]

Project Veritas Investigates Voter Fraud In Minnesota 24 hours in Advance of today's Presidential Caucus
Feb 7 2012
NFL Special Edition featuring the names of Tim Tebow and Tom Brady

PARAMUS, NEW JERSEY- During today's Presidential Caucus in Minnesota, voters may be surprised to see the ease in which individuals may register to vote for themselves or others without identification requirements of any kind.

In advance of the 2012 Presidential Caucus, Project Veritas' investigators visited the Land of 10,000 lakes yesterday and inquired with voter registration officials if they could register on behalf of others . . .

. . .including the names of today's NFL star quarterbacks:

Project Veritas Investigator: "Thomas Brady he just happened to be assaulted in Minnesota so he's going through a lot of depression so he can't come in to register to vote.

Voter Registration Official: That's all right . . . if he fills this form out, then he would get on the list where he would automatically, every election, get one of these forms in the mail which he would then fill out and mail to us and then we would send him a ballot.

Project Veritas Investigator: "Timothy Tebow, he got in a car accident recently and I don't think he's going to be able physically to come in to cast a ballot to vote"

Voter Registration Official: He can always absentee vote.

After visiting five voter-registration offices, Project Veritas' investigators were provided with dozens of voter-registration applications that simply had to be mailed back with no identification, notarization, or other means of verification.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqMVxeZhflI&feature=player_embedded

[devil21]

I don't understand what early voting is about. Seems like a great way to rig results, for or against particular candidates. Who's watching those vote counts???


The motion could always be voted down. But only if a majority in the precinct didn't want a transparent process.

Extremely few people know Roberts Rules. The ballots would be out of the room before the motion got completed anyway.

[doctorfunk]

Fraud can happen in primaries and caucuses. It can be by people voting who shouldn't have, miscounting/misrepresenting the count, changing people's votes, etc. The important thing though is the scale and the intent. There is probably some "fraud" by simple errors from the volunteer staff. I have seen no evidence of any large scale fraud that substantially altered the outcome of the elections thus far. Unless you have some hard evidence of substantial fraud and some motive (ie not an innocent mistake), it's just making us look bad.