Hi, Joykins.Presumably most of this was done through absentee ballot? Like most voter fraud?
LOL ... and I'm agreeing with you, Joykins. Precluding absentee ballots eliminates that avenue of corruption.Argument? I'm thinking if I want to vote both here and in N.C. in person, I spend the whole day in the car
In all seriousness, this is a problem and not one solved by in-person presentation of picture ID at the polls.
And disenfranchising a huge segment of the population including a good portion of the military.LOL ... and I'm agreeing with you, Joykins. Precluding absentee ballots eliminates that avenue of corruption.
Agreed. However, it appears that 35,000 people are already disenfranchised in North Carolina due to voter fraud.And disenfranchising a huge segment of the population including a good portion of the military.
Sorry no evidence of that. For them to be disenfranchised they would have to have been prevented from voting.Agreed. However, it appears that 35,000 people are already disenfranchised in North Carolina due to voter fraud.
And the most talked about and controversial of the proposals to stop voter fraud, the Voter ID, will do nothing to stop 98% of voter fraud.The importance of the North Carolina data is not the particular voter fraud, but the establishment of the FACT that people will commit vote fraud in large numbers when given the opportunity to do so. Consequently, the changes needed in order to prevent voter fraud are many.
A single fraudulent vote disenfranchises one voter.Sorry no evidence of that. For them to be disenfranchised they would have to have been prevented from voting.
LOL ... Your attempted change of topic is noted.And the most talked about and controversial of the proposals to stop voter fraud, the Voter ID, will do nothing to stop 98% of voter fraud.
A single fraudulent vote disenfranchises one voter.
35,000 fraudulent votes disenfranchises 35,000 voters. It's not complicated.
LOL ... Your attempted change of topic is noted.
Until the North Carolina data, your side was claiming there was no significant voter fraud.
You're quibbling semantics. (It's a losing argument, just so you know.)That's only true if those fraudulent votes were placed in the name of other people, who were then prevented from voting. Otherwise, that's not disenfranchisement.
Again, no argument.They should not be precluded. They should be better tracked.
This is probably an issue with students or people who moved, which can sometimes create duplicate voter rolls. Since states tend to handle most of their own voting this could create problems. These are mainly logistical problems.
They haven't even investigated the double registrations. Isn't all this a bit premature?
putting it into perspective
765 divided by 101,000,000 = .00000757425
35,750 divided by 101,000,000 = .00035396039
not a very high percentage.
...yeah, in North Carolina and in "other states" -
North Carolinas Board of Elections ... found that 35,570 North Carolina voters from 2012 shared the same first names, last names, and dates of birth with individuals who voted in other states.Vote once here, vote once there - where's the problem?
Gosh, that's a surprise.
Looks like somebody finally did an extensive check: N.C. State Board Finds More than 35K Incidents of 'Double Voting' in 2012 | National Review OnlineNorth Carolinas Board of Elections ... found that 35,570 North Carolina voters from 2012 shared the same first names, last names, and dates of birth with individuals who voted in other states.Let the denials begin ...
Pulling numbers out of thin air I see. What if every one of the double votes were for republicans?
found that 35,570 North Carolina voters from 2012 shared the same first names, last names, and dates of birth with individuals who voted in other states.
Not "double registrations" (way to try and twist this) it was double voting....meaning they voted twice. Is that really so hard to understand?