How would one prove that . . .

MaggieD said:

. . . ineligible people are voting?

It's always seemed so logical to me that people prove they are who they are, but the Left keeps telling us there is no evidence of voter fraud.

So I ask the Left especially -- how could voter fraud be investigated and how would one get proof that ineligible people are voting?

Click to expand...

the same holds true for the opposite question "how do you prove it is"

Captain America said:

If I had it my way, there would be a qualifying test to vote.

Throw out a bunch of current events, some fake news, and a few basic elementary civics questions and if the voter can't tell which is which, send 'em out the door.

Dumb ass voters are the reason we're in the position we are in now.

Maybe there is a reason no one has ever asked me to run for public office after all. LOL!

Click to expand...

On Wisconsin brother.

But first a good hard lesson in civics followed but a test such as the one you propose but in High School. they can't vote until they pass. That will work right?

An informed electorate means thinking people who actually know what is going on and how things work not just what moron on tv tells them is going on.

wolfman24 said:

the same holds true for the opposite question "how do you prove it is"

Click to expand...

The purpose of my post was to ask the Left how it COULD be proven. There is rarely a way to prove a negative. The right doesn't ask the Left for proof there ISNT voter fraud. It is the Left who wants to see proof. And my question of the Left is, "How would one go about proving it?"

wolfman24 said:

On Wisconsin brother.

But first a good hard lesson in civics followed but a test such as the one you propose but in High School. they can't vote until they pass. That will work right?

An informed electorate means thinking people who actually know what is going on and how things work not just what moron on tv tells them is going on.

Click to expand...

The powers that be do not want an informed electorate. Perhaps that's why high school classes in civics were replaced with "social studies." When modern Americans get their information from the likes of FOXNews it makes prefect sense that we are in the situation we are now in.

MaggieD said:

. . . ineligible people are voting?

It's always seemed so logical to me that people prove they are who they are, but the Left keeps telling us there is no evidence of voter fraud.

So I ask the Left especially -- how could voter fraud be investigated and how would one get proof that ineligible people are voting?

Click to expand...

People should show ID when they register to vote and then show it again when they go to the polls. The left doesn't like it because they think ineligible voters would likely vote as democrats. You need an ID to cash a check. No reason we shouldn't require one to vote. That would make it easier to find fraudulent voting.

MaggieD said:

How do any of the things you listed above prove whether or not the person actually voting is the person who is eligible?

Click to expand...

I think the point is, we should pick our battles and choose them wisely. Pragmatic and logical pursuits with critical thought ruling the day.

For example, the idea of vetting each and every voter that shows up to the poll. On the face of it it's a GREAT idea. But when you weigh the asset vs. the liability, it just doesn't make any pragmatic sense. I mean, one fraudulent vote is too many, we would all agree. However, in a land of gazillion votes, and any known history of fraud measures in the thousandth's of less than 1%. It would make a lot more sense to first go for the "low hanging" fruit, that is well known in "voter fraud" circles and that would be the efforts of the republican party to slice and dice the voting districts in to measure that give them the clear advantage even without the popular vote. Limiting polling stations, creating long lines in democrat areas, and doing anything they can within the legal realms of dirty politics to limit the votes that would not favor their party. One of those efforts, to suppress democrat voting, is the very topic we are discussing.

Happy Sunday Miss Maggie. These are for you.

View attachment 67213848

Captain America said:

I think the point is, we should pick our battles and choose them wisely. Pragmatic and logical pursuits with critical thought ruling the day.

For example, the idea of vetting each and every voter that shows up to the poll. On the face of it it's a GREAT idea. But when you weigh the asset vs. the liability, it just doesn't make any pragmatic sense. I mean, one fraudulent vote is too many, we would all agree. However, in a land of gazillion votes, and any known history of fraud measures in the thousandth's of less than 1%. It would make a lot more sense to first go for the "low hanging" fruit, that is well known in "voter fraud" circles and that would be the efforts of the republican party to slice and dice the voting districts in to measure that give them the clear advantage even without the popular vote. Limiting polling stations, creating long lines in democrat areas, and doing anything they can within the legal realms of dirty politics to limit the votes that would not favor their party. One of those efforts, to suppress democrat voting, is the very topic we are discussing.

Happy Sunday Miss Maggie. These are for you.

View attachment 67213848

Click to expand...

Very thoughtful post, Captain. Makes me stop and think. Thank you!

As for the roses?? They are beeeeautiful!

MaggieD said:

Very thoughtful post, Captain. Makes me stop and think. Thank you!

As for the roses?? They are beeeeautiful! ����

Click to expand...

Captain's post was very thoughtful until you think about it.

Yes some of the problems like long lines may suppress the vote. Gerrymandering works both ways depending on which party control their legislature. In my state for example, we have no congresspeople who are Republican.

Getting back to your real question however is a great point. For example how does anyone know who goes on to a computer and vote for people who are aged or for whatever reason have expressed they will not be going to the polls. Who would know if there is collusion with the people working the voting room allowing to people to vote in the place who did not show up. Who is really checking to try and catch cheats? Much better to say there is no problem. Especially if there is a problem, but it helps your side. Sort of the senator Reid strategy, who cares if I lie as long as it helps my side.

One of the issues about 'voter fraud' is that , well, to organize any kind of 'voter fraud' that would effect the outcome of the election would take a lot of people organizing things, and the more people involved, the more likely it would be to be found out.

It is far more effective to not do a 'front end' voter fraud, but a 'back end' result reporting fraud. That can be done either by hacking into the computers that provide results, by purposely misreporting the results, or by putting programing into the voting machines to provide invalid results. You need far less people to do that, and it's not as easily detected. That's why I really like the idea of having the voting machines be isolated, having them 'scan' ballots for tabulation (it leaves a paper trail), and having oversight on the various officials that tabulate the results.

When it comes to getting 'voter id', there are road blocks put into the way to people who don't have good resources, and might have lost their birth certificate(or never had them to begin with), and to actually get photo id. For example, in Georgia, they made people go to the DMV, and then removed the DMV from many counties that were predominately black and poor, making it extremely difficult for people to get their cards. There are far more people who were disenfrancised from being able to exercise their right to vote than there possibly could be from voter fraud