This is a database of people convicted of voter fraud. For the claims you are making, you need a database of individuals who committed voter fraud and weren't caught. As it is not possible for such a database to exist, it is impossible for you to prove your claims. Heres a simple example. Putin comes out after a Russian election and says ' we investigated and found no voter fraud in the election' . You: ' well i guess the election was legit since nobody was convicted of fraud' You interprit very few people being convicted of voter fraud as a sign there is no fraud (incredibly dumb). You should interprit it as the system that catches fraud is bad. Do you actually believe only 1500 people have tried to cheat in our elections since 1979?
You're comparing two entirely different scenarios. The U.S. system, unlike Russia, operates with independent oversight, where both political parties have a vested interest in monitoring elections. If widespread fraud were occurring and the system was as ineffective as you suggest, we’d see bipartisan outrage and far more credible evidence than a handful of isolated convictions. The best criterion is actual conviction. Courts judge cases based on evidence, not hearsay, rumors, or “thoughts.” If we’re going by "common sense," it’s hard to believe that citizens would risk jail time for a single vote, which almost never changes the outcome of an election. It makes even less sense for undocumented immigrants, who are already trying to avoid attention, to risk deportation for that same single vote. In fact, there are documented cases of undocumented immigrants mistakenly placed on voter rolls who begged to be removed out of fear of being caught and deported. The fact that only 1,561 cases have been proven since 1979 actually suggests the system is fairly robust. We are talking about a decades-long database in a country with a long-standing democratic system and independent courts. If we were anything like a Putin-style democracy, where elections and courts are controlled by a single power, you wouldn't see the back-and-forth political shifts we've had in the U.S. since 1979. There would be a single political power in control, and that’s obviously not the case here. Equating this with Russia’s authoritarian regime, where investigations into fraud are manipulated or ignored, completely misses the point. In the U.S., we (at least for past decades) have a functioning system with both oversight and accountability. Time and time again, claims of mass fraud have been debunked by bipartisan investigations, including Trump’s own voter fraud commission.
This is an example of misinformation rather than disinformation. She was simply ignorant, as she in no way would want Trump supporters to do illegal things. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...n-musk-donald-trump-voter-fraud-b2624678.html
I see the apple didn't fall from the tree with these 2 which is rich because Elon and his brother skirted around immigration laws when they were trying to become legal. You know it will happen, but how funny it will be when Elon wants something, and trump turns him down because he just needs him for $$$$$$$$$ and votes
Makes sense. But it is on you to prove there is voter fraud. Not on me to prove there isn't. Of course, as an animating conspiracy theory that might get some rubes to distrust the electoral process and favor a known conman, I recognize that proof isn't actually necessary nor is sufficiently persuasive disproof even possible.
Cause the problem, blame the Democrats. -GOP motto 'It sounds so stupid because it is' | Some election experts concerned over Texas opting out of voter registration data tool AUSTIN, Texas — The Electronic Registration Information Center, or ERIC, is a tool that allows states to share voter registration data and help make sure voters are not registered to vote in multiple states. Now that Texas does not have access to that information anymore, Travis County Tax Assessor-Collector and Voter Registrar Bruce Elfant has concerns. "I'm not proud that the state of Texas has opted to leave a multi-state compact that provides a lot of data that we would need to help keep the rolls clean," Elfant said. Texas opted out of ERIC after state lawmakers passed Senate Bill 1070 last year. Texas moved to an alternative system to update the list of registered voters. The bill was sponsored by Republican State Sen. Bryan Hughes, who spoke about the bill back in April 2023. "So, this bill is designed to give the Secretary of State more options and to make sure we're getting what we're looking for. The people in Texas are getting the service they want," Hughes said at the time. "I know there's been a lot of concerns about ERIC and a lot of states are leaving." Texas joins several other Republican-majority states that are leaving ERIC after online posts questioned the purpose and funding behind it. "In some ways, it sounds so stupid because it is," Joshua Blank, the research director of the Texas Politics Project at University of Texas, said. "Texas and a number of supposedly southern, mostly Republican-led, Senate-led states pulled out of this program because of conspiracy theorists' concerns about the possibility that these programs were essentially associated with people they didn't like. And now it's harder to ferret out voters who are registered in multiple states despite these great efforts to improve voter integrity." With early voting for the November election less than 50 days away, Blank wonders about the future of the political process. "Texas actually took away a tool that was actually used to help eliminate the possibility of voter fraud," Blank said. According to the bill, the new system Texas is using will check to make sure voters are not registered to vote in multiple states or jurisdictions by identifying voters whose addresses have changed. The data will come from the National Change of Address database. https://www.kvue.com/article/news/p...nter/269-dccd4e3d-94e9-403a-9a06-1f070ceafff3
A county official in rural Arizona pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor on Monday after acknowledging delaying the vote canvass in 2022. Cochise County Supervisor Peggy Judd (R) was indicted on felony election interferenceand conspiracy charges last fall after she and a fellow Republican supervisor voted against certifying the county’s midterm election results in advance of a statutory deadline. Arizona law prohibits felons from holding public office, but by accepting a deal to plead to a singular misdemeanor — failure to perform a duty by an election officer — Judd can retain her seat in the ruby-red county in the state’s southeast corner. The plea deal comes barely two weeks in advance of the 2024 presidential election, where former President Trump has not indicated that he will accept the results if he loses. Arizona is again viewed as a critical swing state this cycle, with polls showing a close race. “Any attempt to interfere with elections in Arizona will not be tolerated. My office will continue to pursue justice and ensure that anyone who undermines our electoral system is held accountable,” Attorney General Kris Mayes (D), whose office prosecuted the case, said in a statement. “Today’s plea agreement and sentencing should serve as a strong reminder that I will not hesitate to use every tool available to uphold the rule of law and protect the integrity of Arizona’s elections,” she continued. Judd will pay a maximum $500 fine and face at least 90 days of probation, Mayes’s office said. The Hill has reached out to Judd for comment. Cochise County became an epicenter of election fraud accusations following the 2022 midterm elections as then-gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake (R) contested her narrow loss. The state had several other razor-thin contests that election cycle, and Cochise County also largely lies in a key House district. Judd and fellow Republican Supervisor Tom Crosby (R) both voted against certifying the county’s vote canvass in advance of the deadline set by state law. A trio of conspiracy theorists had claimed the county’s voting machines weren’t properly accredited, but those allegations were refuted by the Arizona secretary of state’s office and the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission. The county ultimately certified its canvass after a court ordered them to do so, causing Judd to change her vote. Crosby still faces two felony counts in the case and has pleaded not guilty.
All these maga types scream VOTER FRAUD........yet they are the ones doing the cheating, kind of like there cult leader does
She's getting off far too easy, they should have never offered her a plea deal and set an example out of her. If this were a Democrat from Mississippi pulling that bullshit they'd be on the way to prison by now.
Studies Agree: Impersonation Fraud by Voters Very Rarely Happens The Brennan Center’s seminal report on this issue, The Truth About Voter Fraud, found that most reported incidents of voter fraud are actually traceable to other sources, such as clerical errors or bad data matching practices. The report reviewed elections that had been meticulously studied for voter fraud, and found incident rates between 0.0003 percent and 0.0025 percent. Given this tiny incident rate for voter impersonation fraud, it is more likely, the report noted, that an American “will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls.” A study published by a Columbia University political scientist tracked incidence rates for voter fraud for two years, and found that the rare fraud that was reported generally could be traced to “false claims by the loser of a close race, mischief and administrative or voter error.” A 2017 analysis published in The Washington Post concluded that there is no evidence to support Trump’s claim that Massachusetts residents were bused into New Hampshire to vote. A comprehensive 2014 study published in The Washington Post found 31 credible instances of impersonation fraud from 2000 to 2014, out of more than 1 billion ballots cast. Even this tiny number is likely inflated, as the study’s author counted not just prosecutions or convictions, but any and all credible claims. Two studies done at Arizona State University, one in 2012 and another in 2016, found similarly negligible rates of impersonation fraud. The project found 10 cases of voter impersonation fraud nationwide from 2000–2012. The follow-up study, which looked for fraud specifically in states where politicians have argued that fraud is a pernicious problem, found zero successful prosecutions for impersonation fraud in five states from 2012–2016. A review of the 2016 election found four documented cases of voter fraud. Research into the 2016 election found no evidence of widespread voter fraud. A 2016 working paper concluded that the upper limit on double voting in the 2012 election was 0.02%. The paper noted that the incident rate was likely much lower, given audits conducted by the researchers showed that “many, if not all, of these apparent double votes could be a result of measurement error.” A 2014 paper concluded that “the likely percent of non-citizen voters in recent US elections is 0.” A 2014 nationwide study found “no evidence of widespread impersonation fraud” in the 2012 election. A 2014 study that examined impersonation fraud both at the polls and by mail ballot found zero instances in the jurisdictions studied. A 2014 study by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office, which reflected a literature review of the existing research on voter fraud, noted that the studies consistently found “few instances of in-person voter fraud.” While writing a 2012 book, a researcher went back 30 years to try to find an example of voter impersonation fraud determining the outcome of an election, but was unable to find even one. A 2012 study exhaustively pulled records from every state for all alleged election fraud, and found the overall fraud rate to be “infinitesimal” and impersonation fraud by voters at the polls to be the rarest fraud of all: only 10 cases alleged in 12 years. The same study found only 56 alleged cases of non-citizen voting, in 12 years. A 2012 assessment of Georgia’s 2006 election found “no evidence that election fraud was committed under the auspices of deceased registrants.” A 2011 study by the Republican National Lawyers Association found that, between 2000 and 2010, 21 states had 1 or 0 convictions for voter fraud or other kinds of voting irregularities. A 2010 book cataloguing reported incidents of voter fraud concluded that nearly all allegations turned out to be clerical errors or mistakes, not fraud. A 2009 analysis examined 12 states and found that fraud by voters was “very rare,” and also concluded that many of the cases that garnered media attention were ultimately unsubstantiated upon further review. Additional research on noncitizen voting can be found here: http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/analysis-noncitizen-voting-vanishingly-rare. Additional resources can be found here: https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/analysis-and-reports. Courts Agree: Fraud by Voters at the Polls is Nearly Non-Existent The Fifth Circuit, in an opinion finding that Texas’s strict photo ID law is racially discriminatory, noted that there were “only two convictions for in-person voter impersonation fraud out of 20 million votes cast in the decade” before Texas passed its law. In its opinion striking down North Carolina’s omnibus restrictive election law —which included a voter ID requirement — as purposefully racially discriminatory, the Fourth Circuit noted that the state “failed to identify even a single individual who has ever been charged with committing in-person voter fraud in North Carolina.” A federal trial court in Wisconsin reviewing that state’s strict photo ID law found “that impersonation fraud — the type of fraud that voter ID is designed to prevent — is extremely rare” and “a truly isolated phenomenon that has not posed a significant threat to the integrity of Wisconsin’s elections.” Even the Supreme Court, in its opinion in Crawford upholding Indiana’s voter ID law, noted that the record in the case “contains no evidence of any [in-person voter impersonation] fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history.” Two of the jurists who weighed in on that case at the time — Republican-appointed former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and conservative appellate court Judge Richard Posner — have since announced they regret their votes in favor of the law, with Judge Posner noting that strict photo ID laws are “now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression rather than of fraud prevention.”
Government Investigations Agree: Voter Fraud Is Rare Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a longtime proponent of voter suppression efforts, argued before state lawmakers that his office needed special power to prosecute voter fraud, because he knew of 100 such cases in his state. After being granted these powers, he has brought six such cases, of which only four have been successful. The secretary has also testified about his review of 84 million votes cast in 22 states, which yielded 14 instances of fraud referred for prosecution, which amounts to a 0.000017 percent fraud rate. Texas lawmakers purported to pass its strict photo ID law to protect against voter fraud. Yet the chief law enforcement official in the state responsible for such prosecutions knew of only one conviction and one guilty plea that involved in-person voter fraud in all Texas elections from 2002 through 2014. A specialized United States Department of Justice unit formed with the goal of finding instances of federal election fraud examined the 2002 and 2004 federal elections, and were able to prove that 0.00000013 percent of ballots cast were fraudulent. There was no evidence that any of these incidents involved in-person impersonation fraud. Over a five year period, they found “no concerted effort to tilt the election.” An investigation in Colorado, in which the Secretary of State alleged 100 cases of voter fraud, yielded one conviction. In Maine, an investigation into 200 college students revealed no evidence of fraud. Shortly thereafter, an Elections Commission appointed by a Republican secretary of state found “there is little or no history in Maine of voter impersonation or identification fraud.” In Florida, a criminal investigation into nine individuals who allegedly committed absentee ballot fraud led to all criminal charges being dismissed against all voters. In 2012, Florida Governor Rick Scott initiated an effort to remove non-citizen registrants from the state’s rolls. The state’s list of 182,000 alleged non-citizen registrants quickly dwindled to 198. Even this amended list contained many false positives, such as a WWII veteran born in Brooklyn. In the end, only 85 non-citizen registrants were identified and only one was convicted of fraud, out of a total of 12 million registered voters. In Iowa, a multi-year investigation into fraud led to just 27 prosecutions out of 1.6 million ballots cast. In 2014 the state issued a report on the investigation citing only six prosecutions. In Wisconsin, a task force charged 20 individuals with election crimes. The majority charged were individuals with prior criminal convictions, who are often caught up by confusing laws regarding restoration of their voting rights. The verdict is in from every corner that voter fraud is sufficiently rare that it simply could not and does not happen at the rate even approaching that which would be required to “rig” an election. Electoral integrity is key to our democracy, and politicians who genuinely care about protecting our elections should focus not on phantom fraud concerns, but on those abuses that actually threaten election security. As historians and election experts have catalogued, there is a long history in this country of racially suppressive voting measures — including poll taxes and all-white primaries — put in place under the guise of stopping voter fraud that wasn’t actually occurring in the first place. The surest way toward voting that is truly free, fair, and accessible is to know the facts in the face of such rhetoric.
