Why is it an assumption? The people were caught in election fraud, were they not...were not the republican operatives in NC and Florida caught?
Where is the proof that catching a couple people means the system is working? That is an assumption based upon very little evidence. It is called jumping to a conclusion. The system is not now focused upon catching fraud it is focused upon not looking for it.
I've already been on this merry-go-round...here is a simple fact no federal or state investigation has yet uncovered widespread voter fraud.
LOL. I discussed this earlier. At first, the deniers said there was no fraud at all, not anywhere, not at any time. Then when it was shown to exist, they said it didn't change the outcome of any elections. When that was shown to be false, they changed again and said that there was fraud but that's okay since it wasn't "widespread."
Your post appears to be in mode #3, but there have been a number of instances of vote fraud, there have been prosecutions because of it, and there have even been court-ordered re-votes of elections because of it.
All one has to do is consult a search engine in order to find all sorts of evidence and examples!
Then it is simple please show any federal or state investigations or audits that have shown widespread voter fraud?
All one has to do is consult a search engine in order to find all sorts of evidence and examples!
What investigations of vote fraud on a national scale have been done? When the President attempted to get the data from the various states' Secretaries of State, many of them simply refused to cooperate.The distinction is not that voter fraud doesn't exist but that all investigations have shown it to be rare and amounting to something like .0003% if that.
What investigations of vote fraud on a national scale have been done? When the President attempted to get the data from the various states' Secretaries of State, many of them simply refused to cooperate.
It may be that some of them at least were determined not to let their dirty little secrets come to light, just as the mess that voting in Detroit is did not come to the public's attention until the Green Party candidate for President in 2016 demanded a recount.
Sounds right. So that's 60% of the nation and not enough for you to conclude that there is not significant vote fraud.I believe you will find that 30 some states allowed access...
I think you need to define what you consider widespread. Is it a moving target like fair share?
Sounds right. So that's 60% of the nation and not enough for you to conclude that there is not significant vote fraud.
Database Swells to 1,285 Proven Cases of Voter Fraud in America
New Jersey--where vote fraud resulted in the court ordering a new election. Nothing trivial or inconsequential there!
Well, either there is vote fraud--consequential vote fraud...or there isn't.True...seems the system works, doesn't it? Fact check: NJ ballot fraud case doesn't signal 'national trouble'
Well, either there is vote fraud--consequential vote fraud...or there isn't.
I don't think you can argue it both ways at once.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?