Texas Lt. Gov Dan Patrick Pays First Voter Fraud 'Bounty'

[Hank77]

After all the stolen election hooey it's more than a bit ironic that the majority of actual fraud was committed in favour of Trump. When it seems like all the bizarre has been squeezed out of the tube, there's always just a bit more in reserve.

I don't know. The two women in PA could be Dems, Ind, etc. I'm not counting on some cases like this not being committed by these party members as well.

But you're right it is ironic that almost all reported cases have been Reps. or Trump supports.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I read about that yesterday. The $25,000.00 figure came about because that was the minimal amount listed that they would pay. The claim is that they are still looking for the "big fish".

 

[essentialsaltes]

Remember all those claims of voter fraud? At least one turned out to be real.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Here is mine. Voter fraud is rare and does not determine the outcomes of elections. Election laws, election workers, official audits and other checks keep our system quite safe.

Pandering stunts, such as the Maricopa County investigation and Dan Patrick's bounty, have not uncovered any evidence of widespread fraud.

How would anyone know if voter fraud was occurring? It is not as if we're employing any means to find out. It takes an unusually incompetent person like the Republican in this case being so inept and so transparent in his attempt to commit fraud for anyone to be forced to admit that there was such an attempt being made. Had the man just sent a friend to come in and vote in his son's name, no one would have been any the wiser. People insist that such fraud is not occurring based upon the fact that no one with the authority to do so is uncovering it. That however may well be because no one with that authority is in the least bit interested in uncovering it so they are making no effort to do so. We can see that it would have been quite easy in the case of the republican to have committed fraud if only the Republican was not either a total dolt or not purposely trying to get caught to demonstrate what lengths one would have to had to go to if one was determined to be caught.

 

[cow451]

How would you prevent someone from trying to commit fraud?

Keep them from registering. We know who typically try to commit vote fraud.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Had the man just sent a friend to come in and vote in his son's name, no one would have been any the wiser.

Not necessarily. If his son had never voted at that polling place before, he would have had to show an ID (Pennsylvania law). His signature would have to pass. And if his son had come in to vote later, the fraud would have been revealed regardless.

This sort of fraud can be successful on an individual level, but it's impractical for committing the scale of fraud that has been alleged in the 2020 election. You would have to identify people who are registered to vote, who you know don't plan to vote, then successfully forge their signatures. And all of that is foiled by those states that have voter ID laws.

It's even harder with mail-in ballots, as you would have to intercept the ballots before they reached the voter and hope that the voter didn't request a replacement or try to vote in person.

All of this keeping in mind that you would need a massive organization to accomplish this on any sort of effective scale, and that a single person flipping or getting caught would blow the whole thing.

 

[7thKeeper]

It is not as if we're employing any means to find out.

Imma need ya to back that one up.

 

[Vylo]

How would you prevent someone from trying to commit fraud?

I feel like my area has the best way. When you go to vote, you sign in. If someone else already signed for you, then they verify identity and if they can't, they arrest you for fraud.

So the best counter to fraud in my area is.....vote, so no one else can in your name.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

How would anyone know if voter fraud was occurring?

To expand on my previous post, if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the Democrats stole the election, that would mean that they managed to falsify AT LEAST 11,000 votes in Pennsylvania, 12,000 in Georgia, and 19,000 in Arizona (the margins of victory in those states, which had the smallest margins of victory for Democrats). However, ideally, you'd want more insurance than that because you don't know the exact number of votes that will be cast or their breakdown, and it ignores other states that were close wins for the Democrats (Nevada, Wisconsin) or that were close, but still went to the Republicans (NC). In order for the Democrats to steal the election, they would have had to come up with something on the order of 100,000 falsified votes. Considering that none have been found despite Republicans going over those battleground states with a fine-toothed comb multiple times now, and no one from the nationwide organization that would have been required to coordinate such an operation has come forward as a whistleblower or slipped up and told the wrong person about it, I think it's safe to say that the idea of a stolen election is pure fantasy at this point.

 

[Nithavela]

Got to give it to Governor Patrick, he's a man of his word.

 

[Pommer]

To expand on my previous post, if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the Democrats stole the election, that would mean that they managed to falsify AT LEAST 11,000 votes in Pennsylvania, 12,000 in Georgia, and 19,000 in Arizona (the margins of victory in those states, which had the smallest margins of victory for Democrats). However, ideally, you'd want more insurance than that because you don't know the exact number of votes that will be cast or their breakdown, and it ignores other states that were close wins for the Democrats (Nevada, Wisconsin) or that were close, but still went to the Republicans (NC). In order for the Democrats to steal the election, they would have had to come up with something on the order of 100,000 falsified votes. Considering that none have been found despite Republicans going over those battleground states with a fine-toothed comb multiple times now, and no one from the nationwide organization that would have been required to coordinate such an operation has come forward as a whistleblower or slipped up and told the wrong person about it, I think it's safe to say that the idea of a stolen election is pure fantasy at this point.

Any “cheating scenario” would have to include the “honest party” being totally incompetent at finding the cheating.

 

[grasping the after wind]

To expand on my previous post, if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the Democrats stole the election, that would mean that they managed to falsify AT LEAST 11,000 votes in Pennsylvania, 12,000 in Georgia, and 19,000 in Arizona (the margins of victory in those states, which had the smallest margins of victory for Democrats). However, ideally, you'd want more insurance than that because you don't know the exact number of votes that will be cast or their breakdown, and it ignores other states that were close wins for the Democrats (Nevada, Wisconsin) or that were close, but still went to the Republicans (NC). In order for the Democrats to steal the election, they would have had to come up with something on the order of 100,000 falsified votes. Considering that none have been found despite Republicans going over those battleground states with a fine-toothed comb multiple times now, and no one from the nationwide organization that would have been required to coordinate such an operation has come forward as a whistleblower or slipped up and told the wrong person about it, I think it's safe to say that the idea of a stolen election is pure fantasy at this point.

Why would we assume the Democrats stole the election in order to determine how we could know if voter fraud ever might take place under the current system? You seem to be trying to counter an argument I am not making rather than explaining to me how, under the current system, one might be able to detect voter fraud. I am not of the mind that Biden stole the election. What concerns me is that because voter fraud under the current system is not readily detectable there might be a close election that could be corrupted by voter fraud. No one seems to be able to tell me how to go about detecting it in a way that makes sense under the current rules.

 

[cow451]

Why would we assume the Democrats stole the election in order to determine how we could know if voter fraud ever might take place under the current system? You seem to be trying to counter an argument I am not making rather than explaining to me how, under the current system, one might be able to detect voter fraud. I am not of the mind that Biden stole the election. What concerns me is that because voter fraud under the current system is not readily detectable there might be a close election that could be corrupted by voter fraud. No one seems to be able to tell me how to go about detecting it in a way that makes sense under the current rules.

Massive fraud would require so many moving parts (especially high-ranking elected and appointed officials) that some loose lips in key positions would cause the house of cards to collapse.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Why would we assume the Democrats stole the election in order to determine how we could know if voter fraud ever might take place under the current system? You seem to be trying to counter an argument I am not making rather than explaining to me how, under the current system, one might be able to detect voter fraud. I am not of the mind that Biden stole the election.

Fair enough, but there are people on this forum who do still maintain that. And your assertion that "people say such fraud isn't occurring" isn't accurate. The fraud that people say isn't occurring is the massive-scale fraud that would be needed for Democrats to have stolen the election. It's understood that there will be fraud - just like it's understood that people will break every law in existence.

What concerns me is that because voter fraud under the current system is not readily detectable there might be a close election that could be corrupted by voter fraud.

I mean, the current system caught a number of people trying to commit voter fraud, so something was readily detectable. It even caught some of them before they actually succeeded, which is excellent. There's no system that can't be defrauded in some way, and any close election could potentially be affected, no matter what system it uses to detect fraud. That's why we scrutinize close elections so thoroughly.

No one seems to be able to tell me how to go about detecting it in a way that makes sense under the current rules.

Under the current rules, the best way is to go over close races with a fine-toothed comb. Check signatures, follow up with voters (possible here in Pennsylvania at least - we record whether or not a person voted in any given election), review security camera footage, interview poll workers, etc.

Out of curiosity, what would you propose?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Massive fraud would require so many moving parts (especially high-ranking elected and appointed officials) that some loose lips in key positions would cause the house of cards to collapse.

Is less than massive fraud is ok with you?

 

[grasping the after wind]

Fair enough, but there are people on this forum who do still maintain that. And your assertion that "people say such fraud isn't occurring" isn't accurate. The fraud that people say isn't occurring is the massive-scale fraud that would be needed for Democrats to have stolen the election. It's understood that there will be fraud - just like it's understood that people will break every law in existence.


I mean, the current system caught a number of people trying to commit voter fraud, so something was readily detectable. It even caught some of them before they actually succeeded, which is excellent. There's no system that can't be defrauded in some way, and any close election could potentially be affected, no matter what system it uses to detect fraud. That's why we scrutinize close elections so thoroughly.


Under the current rules, the best way is to go over close races with a fine-toothed comb. Check signatures, follow up with voters (possible here in Pennsylvania at least - we record whether or not a person voted in any given election), review security camera footage, interview poll workers, etc.

Out of curiosity, what would you propose?

Voting in person on election day while presenting verification of one's identity.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Voting in person on election day while presenting verification of one's identity.

Still not too hard to defraud on a small scale. The guy who got caught from the OP attempted to vote in person, and if he'd found someone who looked close enough to his son to pass, he could have grabbed his son's ID and had them use it. Probably would get away with it.

The issue with your solution is that it starts to add burdens to the voting process, effectively disenfranchising voters. IDs would be fine if there was a national ID system that made an ID easy and inexpensive/free to obtain for all citizens, but IDs can be forged or stolen. And forcing people to vote in person causes issues for anyone who travels for work, servicemembers, the sick and/or elderly, college students, and a whole host of other people. At some point, the number of people disenfranchised will exceed the number of fraud cases prevented - meaning that your anti-fraud measures may themselves be corrupting the results of a close election.

 

[cow451]

Is less than massive fraud is ok with you?

No, but you have to decide whether a few hundred votes nationwide in a Presidential election is "massive". There will never be an election of any size that has zero fraud attempts, as evidenced by the underage son of a candidate trying to vote, or a guy sending in his dead wife's mail-in ballot.

The problem is that the really, really big 2020 loser named Donald Trump has continued to lie about the election and a significant number of his supporters believe the Big Lie. And lots of other members of the same political party are pretending it is likely to happen..... so they can try to stop likely supporters of the winning party from voting.

 

[cow451]

Voting in person on election day while presenting verification of one's identity.

I voted in the Presidential election the same way Donald Trump did. Do you suspect Mr. Trump and I might cheat with our absentee ballots?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I voted in the Presidential election the same way Donald Trump did. Do you suspect Mr. Trump and I might cheat with our absentee ballots?

I did not even use an absentee ballot. I just mailed my vote in. Though I used to vote absentee all of the time. The place where I was supposed to vote was rather hard to find. Add in darkness and rain and it became an unhappy adventure. And that was all but guaranteed in the first week of November. When I found out that I could register to vote absentee I jumped at it. Later my state went, hmmm, good idea. And everyone votes by mail now.