Pursuing Potential Election Wrongdoing

[Valletta]

Racine Co. Sheriff alleges elections commission broke the law - Wisconsin Examiner
Excerpt:
In mid-March 2020, Gov. Tony Evers declared a state of emergency because of the emerging COVID-19 pandemic. On March 12, the WEC held a special meeting to discuss how voting in the upcoming April election would be affected, including the use of special voting deputies who are authorized to go into nursing homes to help people fill out and cast absentee ballots. In that meeting, the six-member commission voted unanimously to declare the special voting deputies “non-essential” which meant they wouldn’t be allowed in nursing homes that were restricting visitors.

Instead, the commissioners decided that residents of nursing homes should be mailed absentee ballots. This decision remained in effect for every election held in 2020.

Outlining his investigation, Luell said that without the special voting deputies, staff members of the nursing home he looked into helped residents fill out their ballots, even if they were cognitively impaired. Luell said that he spoke with eight families of residents of the facility including one who was stripped of the right to vote after being found incompetent by a judge.

Schmaling and Luell allege that the decision by the WEC to not have special voting deputies and the subsequent assistance from nursing home staff violated the law.
----------------------------------------------
What are the efforts in your state to ensure election reform in the future?

 

[SkyWriting]

Racine Co. Sheriff alleges elections commission broke the law - Wisconsin Examiner
Excerpt:
In mid-March 2020, Gov. Tony Evers declared a state of emergency because of the emerging COVID-19 pandemic. On March 12, the WEC held a special meeting to discuss how voting in the upcoming April election would be affected, including the use of special voting deputies who are authorized to go into nursing homes to help people fill out and cast absentee ballots. In that meeting, the six-member commission voted unanimously to declare the special voting deputies “non-essential” which meant they wouldn’t be allowed in nursing homes that were restricting visitors.

Instead, the commissioners decided that residents of nursing homes should be mailed absentee ballots. This decision remained in effect for every election held in 2020.

Outlining his investigation, Luell said that without the special voting deputies, staff members of the nursing home he looked into helped residents fill out their ballots, even if they were cognitively impaired. Luell said that he spoke with eight families of residents of the facility including one who was stripped of the right to vote after being found incompetent by a judge.

Schmaling and Luell allege that the decision by the WEC to not have special voting deputies and the subsequent assistance from nursing home staff violated the law.
----------------------------------------------
What are the efforts in your state to ensure election reform in the future?

I'm from Wisconsin and we are happy for the most part having no notable voter fraud.

 

[Brihaha]

In Virginia, we make an effort to elect qualified, respectable candidates for office. Regardless of the letter beside the name. Politicians have a more difficult job exploiting folks who don't vote for letters!

 

[miamited]

Hi @Valletta

Well, 'alleging' would be the same thing that came from all those reams of 'affidavits'. I'm certainly willing to wait and see what kind of charges might be forthcoming. I'm not really clear on what laws were broken as the WEC seems to be ok with the practice and the WEC would be the group that determines what is legal or illegal in election practices. According to the article, no charges have been filed and no charges have been recommended.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Valletta]

Hi @Valletta

Well, 'alleging' would be the same thing that came from all those reams of 'affidavits'. I'm certainly willing to wait and see what kind of charges might be forthcoming. I'm not really clear on what laws were broken as the WEC seems to be ok with the practice and the WEC would be the group that determines what is legal or illegal in election practices. According to the article, no charges have been filed and no charges have been recommended.

God bless,
Ted

I'm from Wisconsin and we are happy for the most part having no notable voter fraud.

Happy is good, complacent is not.

 

[SkyWriting]

Happy is good, complacent is not.

Party people check for voter fraud every single election.
What's the worst that could happen? The other candidate wins in a very close race.
Which is what happens all the time anyway.

 

[dgiharris]

What are the efforts in your state to ensure election reform in the future?

What is your evidence that election reform to curb illegal voting is required?

Every study I've ever heard about states that illegal votes account for less than 1% of total votes.

And this makes logical sense. The amount of time, money, effort, and resources required to fix an election would be HUGE and the risk of being caught would be enormous.

Both political parties have a century of experience dealing with elections. Both parties have put countless systems in place over the last century to ensure fair voting.

In the last 100 years, the Democrats have NEVER lost the popular vote while simultaneously winning the Electoral College.

In the last 20 years, the Republicans have lost the popular vote TWICE and yet won the Electoral College.
The Democrats contested one of the elections in court back in 2000 with the Florida elections being shady as shade can get but when the courts ruled in the GOP's favor the Democrats backed off and issued a "lets move forward for the good of the country" concession speech...

And yet, it is the Republicans who are crying now claiming widespread election fraud???

 

[miamited]

Hi @Valletta

I have to agree with @dgiharris, living here in SC I haven't seen any evidence that there need to be any particular reforms. I voted by mail and was required to show my driver's license ID, so I don't think there are any identification issues. We have required that signatures be verified on mail in ballot requests since before the 2020 election. So, I'm not sure what else would be required.

Don't know about other states as each state is responsible for their own election laws and practices. However, for me, until someone can show that there was some fraud practiced that a particular change might correct, I'm pretty satisfied that the national elections here in the U.S. are fair, free and valid. I always have felt that way, whether my choice of candidate won or not.

God bless,
Ted

 

[dgiharris]

....Don't know about other states as each state is responsible for their own election laws and practices. However, for me, until someone can show that there was some STATISITCALLY SIGNIFICANT fraud practiced that a particular change might correct, I'm pretty satisfied that the national elections here in the U.S. are fair, free and valid. I always have felt that way, whether my choice of candidate won or not.

FTFY

the problem with a lot of GOP election arguments is that they are anecdotal. Out of millions of people voting I'm sure there will be some fraud as there is no perfect human system. So the question needs to be, "is the fraud statistically relevant?"

The mathematical answer would be that fraud is significant when said fraud is near equivalent (50%) to the margin of error and/or the margin of victory.

The margin of error for most elections is around 1% and the margin of victory for most elections is around 2%

In terms of presidential elections, 1% represents about 1.2 MILLION VOTES.

So in order to have statistically significant fraud, an agency would need to generate over a million fraudulent votes and not get caught doing so...

And also keep in mind that every link in the chain of the election process has both representatives from democrats and republicans as well as all the protections developed over the last century of voting.

So it is just statistically improbable that election fraud is a thing. It just isn't logical that such a conspiracy can take place.

Last but not least, am I to believe that the GOP was "powerless" to stop election fraud in 2020 when the GOP controlled all three branches of government? Also keep in mind in 2016 Trump said "if I lose it will be because of fraud..." so even then he was priming the pump for election fraud. So if he was that paranoid, he wouldn't put systems in place while being the most powerful man in the country?

No matter how you look at this, the claims are absurd and are merely attempts to legitimize subverting the Democratic party. But worse than that, the GOP does not understand that these baseless claims hurt the nation as a whole.

 

[miamited]

Hi @dgiharris

the problem with a lot of GOP election arguments is that they are anecdotal. Out of millions of people voting I'm sure there will be some fraud as there is no perfect human system. So the question needs to be, "is the fraud statistically relevant?"

Totally agreed. I mean, after all, we all know of the man in PA that voted Republican on his son's ballot. Hopefully all these GOP noisemakers will be able to fix that in the future. But absolutely, it isn't statistically relevant to the price of eggs in China (or the matter at hand).

God bless,
Ted

 

[Albion]

What is your evidence that election reform to curb illegal voting is required?

Sworn statements from hundreds of election workers, proven instances of people casting absentee ballots in the name of other people, ballots counted even without the required signatures, more votes cast in precincts than there are registered voters eligible to vote there, and so on.

Every study I've ever heard about states that illegal votes account for less than 1% of total votes.

Those would be votes proven to be illegal, not votes that no doubt were illegal but have not been corrected and DEFINITELY not fraudulent voting that hasn't been traced to the individual involved although it's known that some ballots were fraudulent and should not have been counted.

And this makes logical sense. The amount of time, money, effort, and resources required to fix an election would be HUGE and the risk of being caught would be enormous.

That is completely incorrect. To "fix" and election by making the outcome be precisely x number of votes for the intended candidate would take some doing, not that there aren't people willing to pay for that to be done. What we're talking about now is corrupt election officials making it easy to cheat and then counting on the people, any partisan willing to do it, to do just that.

Both political parties have a century of experience dealing with elections. Both parties have put countless systems in place over the last century to ensure fair voting.

And many if not most of them were summarily turned upside down in 2020 by election officials who cited the pandemic as an excuse for setting aside, hopefully for good, all that precedent and, in many cases, the explicit requirements of law.

In the last 20 years, the Republicans have lost the popular vote TWICE and yet won the Electoral College.
The Democrats contested one of the elections in court back in 2000 with the Florida elections being shady as shade can get but when the courts ruled in the GOP's favor the Democrats backed off and issued a "lets move forward for the good of the country" concession speech...

Let's correct that.

There was nothing shady about the Florida voting in 2000. The Democrats' claim was simply that voters were confused by an ordinary ballot like most of us have voted ourselves in this era of electronic or punchcard voting instead of the old paper ballots. They never produced any specifics as to how many ballots were cast by voters who thought they were voting for someone else. It was entirely a theory about what could have happened.

And although Gore conceded the election, then took it back, there were and are prominent Democrats, to this day, who claim that Gore won. The elections of 2004 and 2016, both won by the Republican, were also contested by the losing side.

 

[miamited]

Hi @Albion

Sworn statements from hundreds of election workers, proven instances of people casting absentee ballots in the name of other people, ballots counted even without the required signatures, more votes cast in precincts than there are registered voters eligible to vote there, and so on.

Got any of those 'sworn statements' that we can look at? Who has them right now? So far, two cases that I've heard of where people filled out someone else's ballot and both of them voted Republican. Got any evidence that ballots were counted without the required signatures? How about what precincts that had more votes cast than eligible voters. Got 10 we can look at?

Those would be votes proven to be illegal, not votes that no doubt were illegal but have not been corrected and DEFINITELY not fraudulent voting that hasn't been traced to the individual involved although it's known that some ballots were fraudulent and should not have been counted.

Again, proof please? Remember, an allegation without proof is merely an allegation.

What we're talking about now is corrupt election officials making it easy to cheat and then counting on the people, any partisan willing to do it, to do just that.

On no, another unfounded allegation. Who'd have thought.

And most of them were summarily turned upside down in 2020 by election officials who cited the pandemic as an excuse for setting aside, hopefully for good, all that precedent and, in many cases, the explicit requirements of law.

Any chance you'd be able to post the explicit requirements of any state election law that was violated? As each state is responsible for their own state's election laws, are not the particular 'election officials' that you infer authorized to make changes to their state's laws?

Just sounds like the standard Trumpist unfounded and pretty much unproven complaints that everybody was 'in' on this great American scam to steal the election.

God bless,
Ted

 

[Tom 1]

There was nothing shady about the Florida voting in 2000. The Democrats' claim was simply that voters were confused by an ordinary ballot like most of us have voted ourselves in this era of electronic or punchcard voting instead of the old paper ballots. They never produced any specifics as to how many ballots were cast by voters who thought they were voting for someone else. It was entirely a theory about what could have happened.

Come on man even you must be able to see some irony in dismissing other ideas with your ‘explanation’ while supporting the most absurd nonsense without question.

 

[Tom 1]

the explicit requirements of law.

like what?

 

[miamited]

Hi again @Albion

What we're talking about now is corrupt election officials making it easy to cheat and then counting on the people, any partisan willing to do it, to do just that.

Again just curious, but would you be able to give some names of the 'corrupt election officials'? Is Brad Raffensberger a 'corrupt election official'?

God bless,
Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi @Tom 1

like what?

I've been after the 'name names' and 'show proof' evidence for quite awhile now. This has all become an argument of generalizations of amorphous issues and there just doesn't seem to be any way to get to any 'proof' of all the allegations that are being flung about. I encourage you in the effort. But don't be disappointed if nothing is forthcoming.

God bless,
Ted

 

[dgiharris]

Sworn statements from hundreds of election workers, proven instances of people casting absentee ballots in the name of other people, ballots counted even without the required signatures, more votes cast in precincts than there are registered voters eligible to vote there, and so on...
Those would be votes proven to be illegal, not votes that no doubt were illegal but have not been corrected and DEFINITELY not fraudulent voting that hasn't been traced to the individual involved although it's known that some ballots were fraudulent and should not have been counted.
That is completely incorrect. To "fix" and election by making the outcome be precisely x number of votes for the intended candidate would take some doing, not that there aren't people willing to pay for that to be done. What we're talking about now is corrupt election officials making it easy to cheat and then counting on the people, any partisan willing to do it, to do just that....

All of these "allegations" were submitted to over 60+ Federal courts during the Trump "the-election-was-stolen" hissy fit and legal challenges and guess what happened. Every single court, every one of them to a man and woman dismissed the cases. The majority of these courts had Republican judges.

So, you lost. Your so-called allegations were taken to a court of law and they were dismissed. Not once, not twice, not thrice, over 60 times.

In this country, if you take your allegations to a court of law and your allegations are disproven, then that is the end of the matter. If you are "alleged" to have committed a crime and you go to court and you are found innocent, then I have no right to call you a criminal. You were proven innocent.

Same with these "allegations" you are claiming.

Let's correct that.

There was nothing shady about the Florida voting in 2000.

Ummm... the entire hanging chad fiasco and the recounts and the fact that this happened in the same State as the brother of an election candidate is shady as hell.

... The Democrats' claim was simply that voters were confused by an ordinary ballot like most of us have voted ourselves in this era of electronic or punchcard voting instead of the old paper ballots. They never produced any specifics as to how many ballots were cast by voters who thought they were voting for someone else. It was entirely a theory about what could have happened.

And the Democrats took their "allegations" to court and the courts ruled against them and thus, we and the nation moved on. We as a nation do not repeatedly say "the Republicans stole the election, the Republicans cheated, the Republicans subverted our Democracy...". No. We didn't storm the Capital and kill police officers because we believe a fraud had occurred. We accepted our loss and move on.

And although Gore conceded the election, then took it back, there were and are prominent Democrats, to this day, who claim that Gore won. The elections of 2004 and 2016, both won by the Republican, were also contested by the losing side.

please show me the video dated after the court ruling of Gore and prominent Democrats claiming the election was stolen, the courts were rigged, that fraud had occurred and that we as a nation need to rise up and "not take it" etc etc.
Please show me video of weeks and weeks of rhetoric and escalation by Gore claiming that the election was stolen and that "the people" need to do something about it or else we won't have a country anymore.

Please show me video of Gore calling the Republicans thieves and liars and corrupt over and over again.

I'm tired of revisionist history.
Yes, the Democrats whined and complained about winning the Popular vote but losing the Electoral College. But Democrats did NOT subvert this country and the institution of the Elections in any way near what the GOP has done over the past year. Not even close.

Gore conceded and encouraged the country to support the new president...
What Trump and the GOP has done is tantamount to setting the country on fire and it is unforgivable.

It's as if the GOP would rather the country burn to the ground rather than a Democrat be successful in making the nation prosperous.

 

[Albion]

All of these "allegations" were submitted to over 60+ Federal courts during the Trump "the-election-was-stolen" hissy fit and legal challenges and guess what happened. Every single court, every one of them to a man and woman dismissed the cases.

You're mistaken about that. But eve4n if yo were right, the claim you're working from is still incorrect. I'm referring to the ridiculous idea that the way elections have been run in the past year or so is the established, tried and true, manner in which they've long been run in our country.

The many changes, most of which were known to be fraud-prone, have changed elections substantially. The excuse used at the time was Covid, but now we see the real strategy as Pelosi and Schumer are trying to impose those changes on the whole country through Congressional action, and permanently.

Ummm... the entire hanging chad fiasco and the recounts and the fact that this happened in the same State as the brother of an election candidate is shady as hell.

Bush beating Gore in Florida is enough for the latter's fans to make that claim; it's not necessary that there be anything shady at all. By the way, the Florida hanging chad thing was about a requested recount, not fraud, and the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs--the Gore team--was asking for something that was not within Florida law. That was why the Supremes ruled against Gore.

In your post, you made a big thing out of Republican judges refusing to hear some of the appeals made by the Trump team.

In this country, if you take your allegations to a court of law and your allegations are disproven, then that is the end of the matter.

While you're at it, chew on the fact that the Supreme Court ruled against Gore but you're here a generation later still going on about it as though THAT court action didn't matter or was improper, not to mention the fiction that this (following) story line offers us--

And the Democrats took their "allegations" to court and the courts ruled against them and thus, we and the nation moved on.

 

[miamited]

HI @Albion

While you're at it, chew on the fact that the Supreme Court ruled against Gore but you're here a generation later still going on about it as though THAT court action didn't matter or was improper, not to mention the fiction that this (following) story line offers us--

Sorry to stick my nose into the middle of your discussion with @dgiharris, but...

I understand that you and I see the reality of life a little differently, but I didn't get the impression from @dgiharris's response that he was 'going on about it as though THAT court action didn't matter'. That would be a coloring that you are impressing upon his words. Far as I can tell he's just bringing up the historical account of the incident and supporting the idea that in those days, unlike today, everyone accepted the outcome within a couple of weeks and it's all over. Just because someone several years later brings up an event doesn't necessarily mean that such event is stuck in someone's craw. You really should work a little harder at not putting words into people's mouths and deal with the facts in evidence.

God bless,
Ted