• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

DMV: 900 Dead People May Have Voted

The people pushing voter ID laws know that (even if misled masses do not). It would also be just as effective, if ID was desired, to have people bring a recent utility bill, checking account statement, or even their voter registration card -- anything 'official' with the name and address of the registered voter on it.

However, that would not be as effective in disenfranchising legal voters as a state issued photo ID, which some may not have (don't drive), or some may not want to visit a state office to get (minor problems with the law, child support, simply a pain in the ass, whatever). And of course we all know for whom those at the bottom rungs of the socio-economic ladder -- those who may not have official photo-ID's but may still be legal voters -- are likely to vote for: Democrats.

Given that, I'm really at a loss as to why the Republicans are so hot on this non-issue.... :roll:

Oh, the race card... do you really think minorities are that incapable that a simple photo ID is a barrier to voting? How insulting and condescending your position is.
 
The people pushing voter ID laws know that (even if misled masses do not). It would also be just as effective, if ID was desired, to have people bring a recent utility bill, checking account statement, or even their voter registration card -- anything 'official' with the name and address of the registered voter on it.

However, that would not be as effective in disenfranchising legal voters as a state issued photo ID, which some may not have (don't drive), or some may not want to visit a state office to get (minor problems with the law, child support, simply a pain in the ass, whatever). And of course we all know for whom those at the bottom rungs of the socio-economic ladder -- those who may not have official photo-ID's but may still be legal voters -- are likely to vote for: Democrats.

Given that, I'm really at a loss as to why the Republicans are so hot on this non-issue.... :roll:
Oh, the race card... do you really think minorities are that incapable that a simple photo ID is a barrier to voting? How insulting and condescending your position is.
Where is race mentioned in my post? :screwy
 
DMV: 900 Dead People May Have Voted | wltx.com

Remember folks, no need for something has racist, hateful and evil asking people to show ID before they vote... fraud rarely if ever happens!





I can't even begin to express my disgust at how this was posted.

1) OK, a legitimate argument from a mainstream source, where a REPUBLICAN state official claims to have evidence of voter fraud, but has not actually produced it. This comes right on the heels of the Justice Department order to suspend the new voter law, because of claims that it would disenfranchise thousands of voters. But, still, it's a mainstream source.

2) The article by the daily caller and the video footage purporting to show voter fraud is where you fail. First, let's check out how O'Keefe obtained his footage..... By committing voter fraud himself. There is a grand jury in New Hampshire looking into the same prank O'Keefe pulled up there before it's primary. He committed voter fraud there 12 times, and is probably going to be spending jail time for it.

From this article.

Also, what O'Keefe did not show in his video was the dishonest way he went about it:


And, of course, O'Keefe and company never back with their ID to compete the process, but shows the video, making people think he did. O'Keefe is the very same person who has caused controversy in the past by editing video footage to make it appear that people said something different from what they actually said. This is known as yellow journalism, and O'Keefe is one of it's main practitioners.

The way this is posted is nothing but spin..... So far. What I need to see is the actual proof from the head of South Carolina's DMV, which he has not produced yet. But even should he produce those 900 names he claims to have, it is nothing, compared to the thousands of elderly and poor, who would not be allowed to vote as a result of South Carolina's law. The Justice Department is correct in reviewing the law, to make sure that Jim Crow keeps his nasty nose out of elections in South Carolina.

As for O'Keefe, he DID break the law in New Hampshire, and now in South Carolina. Let him rot in a jail cell, where he belongs.
 
Last edited:
I suggest you watch the video -- it was O'Keefe and his assistants that were "cheating and perpetrating voter fraud".

No they weren't. They didn't accept any of the ballots and were performing a service by showing the holes in the system... Isn't that part of investigative journalism? Oh... only if you are a mainstream liberal news source... right?
 
Democrats cheating and perpetrating voter fraud? No, say it isn't so. ROFLMAO!
I suggest you watch the video -- it was O'Keefe and his assistants that were "cheating and perpetrating voter fraud".
No they weren't. They didn't accept any of the ballots and were performing a service by showing the holes in the system... Isn't that part of investigative journalism? Oh... only if you are a mainstream liberal news source... right?
The "Democrats" in the original poster's statement do not exist -- he was perpetrating propaganda.

My post was an attempt to correct the record.

I'll leave it to the Grand Jury to determine the legality of O'Keefe's actions. But offhand, O'Keefe's usual tactics -- perpetrating a fraud -- doesn't really ring my investigative journalism bell.
 
I can't even begin to express my disgust at how this was posted.

1) OK, a legitimate argument from a mainstream source, where a REPUBLICAN state official claims to have evidence of voter fraud, but has not actually produced it. This comes right on the heels of the Justice Department order to suspend the new voter law, because of claims that it would disenfranchise thousands of voters. But, still, it's a mainstream source.

2) The article by the daily caller and the video footage purporting to show voter fraud is where you fail. First, let's check out how O'Keefe obtained his footage..... By committing voter fraud himself. There is a grand jury in New Hampshire looking into the same prank O'Keefe pulled up there before it's primary. He committed voter fraud there 12 times, and is probably going to be spending jail time for it.

From this article.

Also, what O'Keefe did not show in his video was the dishonest way he went about it:



And, of course, O'Keefe and company never back with their ID to compete the process, but shows the video, making people think he did. O'Keefe is the very same person who has caused controversy in the past by editing video footage to make it appear that people said something different from what they actually said. This is known as yellow journalism, and O'Keefe is one of it's main practitioners.

The way this is posted is nothing but spin..... So far. What I need to see is the actual proof from the head of South Carolina's DMV, which he has not produced yet. But even should he produce those 900 names he claims to have, it is nothing, compared to the thousands of elderly and poor, who would not be allowed to vote as a result of South Carolina's law. The Justice Department is correct in reviewing the law, to make sure that Jim Crow keeps his nasty nose out of elections in South Carolina.

As for O'Keefe, he DID break the law in New Hampshire, and now in South Carolina. Let him rot in a jail cell, where he belongs.

The first story was out there, and the second was linked as "more like this story" so I thought it would add color to the issue. Obviously I forgot that O'Keefe is radioactive among liberals and started a stirr.
 
Last edited:
No they weren't. They didn't accept any of the ballots and were performing a service by showing the holes in the system... Isn't that part of investigative journalism? Oh... only if you are a mainstream liberal news source... right?

Investigative journalism? The previous videos turned out to be fake. As has already been shown by many in this thread, this one is, at the least, a total distortion... That isn't "investigative journalism", it's attempting to manipulate public opinion with outright dishonesty.
 
Its funny how when major networks run exposes its journalism but when a guy does it and it exposes practices liberals defend, retards trip over themselves to decry the practice. :lamo
 
Its funny how when major networks run exposes its journalism but when a guy does it and it exposes practices liberals defend, retards trip over themselves to decry the practice. :lamo

Because it always turns out he is faking the videos dude.
 
Because it always turns out he is faking the videos dude.
Does it? Is he faking the other persons roles? You may not approve of his tactics but has someone proven that WASNT really a welfare worker helping him figure out the process to file for assistance for a whore house? Are those real poll workers giving him balloots?

Face it...he shows the flaws in liberal programs and it makes you lose your mind. Instead of having a little integrity and saying..."huh...thats probably a part of the program that should be changed to preserve the integrity of the program" morons rush to defend the programs at all cost. One would think if people are really able to request ballots for dead people, everyone would identify that as a problem. Not going to happen when that knee is so quick at jerking up and hitting you in your nose.
 
Does it? Is he faking the other persons roles? You may not approve of his tactics but has someone proven that WASNT really a welfare worker helping him figure out the process to file for assistance for a whore house?

I just find it baffling that you were honestly unaware of this... It was such a huge scandal when it turned out it was faked... Are you like only getting your news from Fox or something?

That pimp costume it looks like he was wearing in the interview, he just filmed himself walking along the street in it somewhere else on a different day and then edited it in. The bits where it sounds like he is pretending to be a pimp are all either just voice over or taking things out of context. He was actually telling them that he was a local politician trying to help a young girl out of a life of prostitution. He said that the first thing she needed was a place to live away from her abusive pimp, but she was afraid to report her earnings as an underage prostitute because she didn't want to be arrested, and they helped her out. The responses of the workers were cut I think they figured out 43 times to make it sound like they were saying what they were.

The did is an animal. He's just going around flagrantly fabricating evidence to try to tear down anybody that tries to do good. He's one evil mofo that's for sure. Luckily, very few people still pay any attention to his antics after all the times he got busted faking videos... Were you even aware that he spent time in jail after being caught faking one of them? Does that sort of information just not filter in to the fox universe at all?
 
[...] You may not approve of his tactics but has someone proven that WASNT really a welfare worker helping him figure out the process to file for assistance for a whore house? [...]
He never proved that it was. However, the right wing argument is usually that whatever they say is true, without any proof, unless someone disproves it. Go figure [shrug]

Now in the New Hampshire case, it certainly seems clear that the poll workers were going to give out ballots of dead people. However, what does this prove? Does it prove that dead people have voted in NH in the past?

If the argument then is, "well, they could have", then that's pretty lame, don't you think?

If that is the argument, since O'Keefe seemed to focus on people who had been dead less than 30 days, and who were already registered to vote, just how many people would that be? 10? 30? More? If you want to play the 'what if' game, if all the dead people who were still on the registration rolls voted, would that be enough votes to change the election?

Would those be Democratic votes or Republican votes?

Admittedly, NH should tighten up a bit on canvassing those death notices, but is there really a looming problem here? One requiring state-issued photo ID?
 
Last edited:
People should have to show ID to vote. Its not that difficult. Probably won't stop voter fraud however.[/QUOTE

Worrying about wholesale voter fraud is the adult version of worrying about the boogeyman....
 
I just find it baffling that you were honestly unaware of this... It was such a huge scandal when it turned out it was faked... Are you like only getting your news from Fox or something?

That pimp costume it looks like he was wearing in the interview, he just filmed himself walking along the street in it somewhere else on a different day and then edited it in. The bits where it sounds like he is pretending to be a pimp are all either just voice over or taking things out of context. He was actually telling them that he was a local politician trying to help a young girl out of a life of prostitution. He said that the first thing she needed was a place to live away from her abusive pimp, but she was afraid to report her earnings as an underage prostitute because she didn't want to be arrested, and they helped her out. The responses of the workers were cut I think they figured out 43 times to make it sound like they were saying what they were.

The did is an animal. He's just going around flagrantly fabricating evidence to try to tear down anybody that tries to do good. He's one evil mofo that's for sure. Luckily, very few people still pay any attention to his antics after all the times he got busted faking videos... Were you even aware that he spent time in jail after being caught faking one of them? Does that sort of information just not filter in to the fox universe at all?
Actually if that is all true then he is a total douche. Its comical that you like all the other morons have this incessant need to fall back on the Fox News hate train. From what I have seen here its you and people like you that are the ones that actually WATCH Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News. No wonder their viewership is so high. Its not only the people that watch them...its morons that HATE them that watch them and follow them so closely that bumps them up. Well done...you have earned your Pete Badge! :lamo
 
He never proved that it was. However, the right wing argument is usually that whatever they say is true, without any proof, unless someone disproves it. Go figure [shrug]

Now in the New Hampshire case, it certainly seems clear that the poll workers were going to give out ballots of dead people. However, what does this prove? Does it prove that dead people have voted in NH in the past?

If the argument then is, "well, they could have", then that's pretty lame, don't you think?

If that is the argument, since O'Keefe seemed to focus on people who had been dead less than 30 days, and who were already registered to vote, just how many people would that be? 10? 30? More? If you want to play the 'what if' game, if all the dead people who were still on the registration rolls voted, would that be enough votes to change the election?

Would those be Democratic votes or Republican votes?

Admittedly, NH should tighten up a bit on canvassing those death notices, but is there really a looming problem here? One requiring state-issued photo ID?
See...now look at that...someone that can disagree with the guy and not turn into an "I HATE FOX NEWS zombie"...

If there is a potential for fraud it should be eliminated. I dont care if it is republican OR democrat. I dont vote for either party and I HIGHLY doubt 3rd party voters are going to be rising from the grave to sway the election. However we have seen (and Ive posted links in the past-I can find them and post them again) where dead people voted in the last election...in Texas, New Mexico, Illinois, and others. We have far too many instance of vote fraud indicators...be it the bags of alleged ballots found floating in ditches and lakes or the bags of ballots accidentally found weeks later in someones closet or trunk. Dead people shouldnt be able to vote. Poll workers shouldnt be able to cast peoples ballots for people. Election purity and intent (for whatever that is worth consider the amount of crap in the adds and airwaves) ought to be maintained wherever possible. If people can request ballots on behalf of dead people that practice SHOULD be identified and stopped. That people immediately shreik and cry about the exposure (and cling to their Fox News boogy man) is a pretty good indicator of their character.
 
No they weren't. They didn't accept any of the ballots and were performing a service by showing the holes in the system... Isn't that part of investigative journalism? Oh... only if you are a mainstream liberal news source... right?

O'Keefe has a proven history of editing footage to show something that didn't really happen, so you'll have to forgive me for not taking a video from him at face value!

(remember the Acorn-helping-prostitute thing? total bull****)
 
How is an ID going to prevent someone who is determined to commit voter fraud (however miniscule that may be)?


Let's take this statement by John Fund, a Wall Street Journal columnist and author of Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy.

"Let's say somebody is registered who doesn't exist. How would you know that that was an improper vote?" Fund said. "All you have is an address. The person shows up at the polls, signs a signature, can vote. How would you know an improper vote has been cast? You wouldn't."

Now let's alter that statement slightly, with the bolded.

"Let's say somebody is registered who doesn't exist. How would you know that that was an improper vote? All you have is an address. The person shows up at the polls, shows a fake ID, can vote. How would you know an improper vote has been cast? You wouldn't."

If you're going to risk violating a federal election law a fake ID damn sure isn't going to deter you.

An ID isn't going to stop voter fraud, all it's doing is putting another unneccessary obstacle in the way of others.


Couple the ID laws with other assaults on limiting voting like:

uneccessary retrictions on groups like the League of Women Voters to register new voters

eliminating same day voter registration

cutting short early voting periods

Florida and Iowa barred all ex-felons from the polls, disenfranchising thousands of previously eligible voters



It's an uneccessary attempt at limiting the voting process.

Voting should be made easier.
 
Voter fraud does occur, no doubt about that, but every study on it I've ever seen concluded that 99.9% of it occurs with absentee ballots, computer hacking or election workers stuffing ballots. People actually going into a polling place and voting as somebody else or whatever, while possible, doesn't appear to actually happen hardly at all. Just think about it. One vote is basically meaningless in the big picture. It's hard enough to get people to vote once, let alone multiple times when they could potentially go to prison for it. It would be a wildly inefficient and risky way to defraud an election.

Not to mention that its just far too much work for a negligible result. It is extremely improbable to actually get out enough illegal votes to sway an election other than a very local election that just does not have many aggregate votes. A political party's efforts are much better directed getting the reluctant to vote than getting one person to vote multiple times.

It is, very easy, however to discourage the vote. Tactics that were pulled off in Ohio several years ago included having more than enough election machines for the suburbs and not nearly enough for the inner city, making it very convenient for one group to vote and very, very inconvenient (waits reported as 3-4 hours) for another. It is estimated that 3% of the voting populace in Ohio were discouraged from voting. That may have swung the 2004 presidential election.

2004 United States election voting controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Again, this idea that illegal voters are voting in sufficient mass (and all voting one particular way) to sway an election defies reason. Its an adult boogeyman; no more real than the one in your closet.
 
Actually if that is all true then he is a total douche. Its comical that you like all the other morons have this incessant need to fall back on the Fox News hate train. From what I have seen here its you and people like you that are the ones that actually WATCH Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Fox News. No wonder their viewership is so high. Its not only the people that watch them...its morons that HATE them that watch them and follow them so closely that bumps them up. Well done...you have earned your Pete Badge! :lamo

It definitely is true. Not just that, but it was widely reported when he got busted for faking it. Front page, top story, for multiple days on every legitimate news source. They gave the faking just as much coverage as they gave the initial video. But, there are large numbers of people, all on the right politically, who are very aware of the video, but unaware that they turned out to be fake. That's what we're struggling to understand. The most obvious explanation would seem to be that it happens because the right wing media outlets- Fox, WND, humanevents, Limbaugh, Beck, Washington Times, blogs, AM radio, etc- massively reported the video, but then failed to mention that it was fake at all. If you have another explanation, by all means, I'm all ears.

In fact, we see that sort of situation all the time on just about every issue. Folks on the right that are keenly aware of half of a story, but completely unaware of the entire other half of what happened. It's becoming more and more troubling. I am assuming that it is not a coincidence that they are consistently aware of the half that the right wing media reports, but not the half that they choose not to report.
 
Checking ID would not in any way stop the voter fraud stated by the OP. It means that poll workers and/or the precinct election judge cast ballots themselves, picking names out of there book of registered voters to do so. Checking IDs is entirely irrelevant.
 
The voter ID idea is really, really simple and straight forward. The reasons for being against it are highly suspect.

It is a great idea... problem is that the GOP what to make it hard to get and that is a horrible idea.
 
It definitely is true. Not just that, but it was widely reported when he got busted for faking it. Front page, top story, for multiple days on every legitimate news source. They gave the faking just as much coverage as they gave the initial video. But, there are large numbers of people, all on the right politically, who are very aware of the video, but unaware that they turned out to be fake. That's what we're struggling to understand. The most obvious explanation would seem to be that it happens because the right wing media outlets- Fox, WND, humanevents, Limbaugh, Beck, Washington Times, blogs, AM radio, etc- massively reported the video, but then failed to mention that it was fake at all. If you have another explanation, by all means, I'm all ears.

In fact, we see that sort of situation all the time on just about every issue. Folks on the right that are keenly aware of half of a story, but completely unaware of the entire other half of what happened. It's becoming more and more troubling. I am assuming that it is not a coincidence that they are consistently aware of the half that the right wing media reports, but not the half that they choose not to report.
Let me ask you...Ive seen several people here say that the 'crime' committed was the guy committed voter fraud by requesting ballots of dead people. Did he? And did he get those ballots? And if so...would you say that is a problem?

Personally...I think elections are supposed to mean something. I think douchebags that stuff ballot boxes ought to go to jail. I think people that fraudulently register or entice others to register fraudulently ought to go to jail. I think voter fraud or intimidation of all kind should be identified and the perpetrators should be jailed. Of course...only jailed because public flogging and caning would be deemed uncivilized. If dead people can vote that practice should be stopped. Perhaps the reason why it is important because the issue of voter fraud, voter intimidation, ballot stuffing, lost and missing ballots, mystery ballots, etc happens EVERY ELECTION. Maybe its time that ended...huh? And if this guy exposed a problem...I dont give a **** if you hate him...and I dont give a **** if you have GAWD I LOVE HATING FOX NEWS tattood on your dick in gold Krylon...I dont care if you and the other Fox news Bashers have coffee and whack each other with sticks...the fraud...ALL of it...should end. If you disagree...its likely because you are on the side of people that just...keep...doing it.
 
Let me ask you...Ive seen several people here say that the 'crime' committed was the guy committed voter fraud by requesting ballots of dead people. Did he? And did he get those ballots? And if so...would you say that is a problem?

Personally...I think elections are supposed to mean something. I think douchebags that stuff ballot boxes ought to go to jail. I think people that fraudulently register or entice others to register fraudulently ought to go to jail. I think voter fraud or intimidation of all kind should be identified and the perpetrators should be jailed. Of course...only jailed because public flogging and caning would be deemed uncivilized. If dead people can vote that practice should be stopped. Perhaps the reason why it is important because the issue of voter fraud, voter intimidation, ballot stuffing, lost and missing ballots, mystery ballots, etc happens EVERY ELECTION. Maybe its time that ended...huh? And if this guy exposed a problem...I dont give a **** if you hate him...and I dont give a **** if you have GAWD I LOVE HATING FOX NEWS tattood on your dick in gold Krylon...I dont care if you and the other Fox news Bashers have coffee and whack each other with sticks...the fraud...ALL of it...should end. If you disagree...its likely because you are on the side of people that just...keep...doing it.

We have no way to know what actually happened because all we have is an O'Keefe video and we know those are completely unreliable. In the past they have actively portrayed something as happening that did not in fact happen the way he portrayed it. That may very well be the case here. Somebody earlier pointed out, for example, that they check the ballots when you turn them in, not when you get them... If that's so, then the whole video is totally meaningless. But I'm not going to waste time speculating about what the scam may be this time. We've been fooled enough times by this guy. He doesn't get any more chances.

One note though, of course fraud happens every election. In every national election there has ever been anywhere in the world there has always been some amount of fraud, and no matter what procedures we implement there will always be some fraud in the future. You can't reduce it to zero more than you can reduce any other kind of crime to zero no matter what you do. But, what matters isn't just "is there any crime" it is "what is the crime rate", and despite the frequent media coverage, by all indications voter fraud appears to make up an incredibly small percentage of votes cast. No matter what happens, you will continue to see stories on the news about voter fraud regularly for as long as the audience tunes in to those stories. That doesn't mean it is a significant problem. In a nation of 311 million there are incidents of every possible crime no matter if the crime rate is virtually zero or if it is high.

Now, even with a statistically minor problem like voter fraud, we should take reasonable measures to prevent it. For sure. But some politicians in both parties, but especially on the right, are trying to use the hysteria over voter fraud to force through measures that really are designed to give them personally an artificial advantage in the elections. For example, focusing on removing dead people from the registration database it easy and doesn't hurt anybody. I have no problem at all with that. Even requiring a valid photo id, no problem there. You do those two things and you have done everything you can do to prevent fraud in the polling place. But, many politicians are trying to go way beyond that. For example, some states are now planning to require not just that you have a valid ID, but that the ID be issued by the state you're in and that it have your current address. That does nothing at all to make the process more fraud proof. If you are registered there and have a valid ID, you're supposed to be voting and you can only vote one time and only where you're registered, regardless of whether you forgot to update your address with the DMV last time you moved. The reason they're pushing for those kinds of extra requirements are because they have calculated that it will skew the next election in their favor. Maybe a Democratic politician represents a district where the elderly tend to vote Republican, so he supports that measure because he knows that many people living in retirement homes that don't drive any more don't bother updating their ID, so they wouldn't be able to vote. Maybe a Republican represents a district where part of it is poorer and mostly uses public transportation and that part votes for Democrats, so he supports the measure because he knows that people who don't drive aren't required to update their driver's license when they move, so he knows that fewer people from that community will end up being able to vote.

We can take steps to prevent fraud, but anytime you let politicians change the way voting works you need to be ultra cautious. In my view the radical overblowing of the threat of voter fraud is nothing more than an attempt to manipulate you into throwing that caution to the wind and in your frenzy to rectify this largely fictional problem, to overlook the fact that they are rigging the elections in their own favor. Don't fall for it. Get your information about how serious voter fraud is from neutral studies, not O'Keefe videos and Fox headlines. Think about what is the absolute smallest change that would prevent that fraud, don't just jump on the bandwagon of anybody claiming they want to address voter fraud.
 
Back
Top Bottom