Election being called for Harris

Stop hedging Tiny. It’s not they MAY have lied. It’s they lied. It’d be easier for me to respect your opinion even if I disagree if you didn’t keep the lies going with your noncommitment to stating truth.

I mostly agree. The number of fraudulent votes on the Heritage database isn't miniscule, but there are rarely enough to sway an election. And even in those cases it's a pissant local election nobody cares about.

Having forged fake school ID's to buy beer, I disagree on that point.



Trump and his proxies may have lied but this hasn't been going on for 20 years. More like a few months in 2020 and 2021. Yes, they did hope to massively disenfranchise voters in a handful of states, and limit voting to a few dozen alternate electors.

But otherwise the purpose of voting legislation advocated by Republicans has usually been to make elections more secure, not to have fewer voters. Democrats have convinced their base that the Repubs are trying to prevent them from voting though, and as you say, that has increased their participation. You prohibit Dems from passing out barbecue and beer in election lines and you have a lot of pissed off Democrats. Originally Posted by Tiny

The numbers from Heritage are miniscule. MN, the state with the most cases (and a small population, so the highest percentage) has less than 0.0005% fraudulent votes of all votes cast in the last twenty years.

The question then becomes why pass restrictive laws when the elections are secure. As we see with all the suits Republicans bring, they want fewer votes to count. It would take a helluva spin to make that less than glaringly obvious.

The Brennan Center tracks how those restrictive laws work, how they burden eligible voters.

You might want to have a look at how France does its voting. It’s very very local and it does appear to be far quicker than US voting. They do have some advantages, it takes place on Sundays when most people are not working (rather than midweek) and because it’s so local it can be in person and hand counted on paper ballots. In fact people out side of France in their territories actually poll there rather than mailing in votes.

Their entire electorate is less than the votes any major party candidate has received in an election since I’ve been able to vote. So there is that. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

My polling place is my church. That wouldn't fly. Day needs to be a weekday to not disenfranchise a few major religions

Stop hedging Tiny. It’s not they MAY have lied. It’s they lied. It’d be easier for me to respect your opinion even if I disagree if you didn’t keep the lies going with your noncommitment to stating truth. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

PLEASE. "May" was an admission they lied, not a hedge. Read all of what we both wrote. How could I agree with you, and also say, "They did hope to massively disenfranchise voters in a handful of states, and limit voting to a few dozen alternate electors," without believing they lied?

Cognitive dissonance? Rationalization? Irrational thoughts?

The numbers from Heritage are miniscule. MN, the state with the most cases (and a small population, so the highest percentage) has less than 0.0005% fraudulent votes of all votes cast in the last twenty years.

The question then becomes why pass restrictive laws when the elections are secure. As we see with all the suits Republicans bring, they want fewer votes to count. It would take a helluva spin to make that less than glaringly obvious.

The Brennan Center tracks how those restrictive laws work, how they burden eligible voters. Originally Posted by yeahsurewhatev

1560 cases is not miniscule:

https://electionfraud.heritage.org/search

As Blackman implied, laws supported by Republicans that make voting marginally more difficult backfire. They piss off Democrats and make them more likely to vote. The Dobbs abortion decision and Trump's attempt to steal the 2020 election are also motivating Democrats to vote. As such, measures to "restrict" voting, like fewer voting days or requiring people to remember to bring ID, favor Democrats, because they're more motivated. It's why Democratic politicians outperformed the polls in 2022 and probably will again this year. I don't understand why you're complaining.

Cognitive dissonance? Rationalization? Irrational thoughts? Originally Posted by HDGristle

No. Too much time spent practicing law. He lost whatever interpretive reading skills he once had.

1560 cases is not miniscule:

https://electionfraud.heritage.org/search

As Blackman implied, laws supported by Republicans that make voting marginally more difficult backfire. They piss off Democrats and make them more likely to vote. The Dobbs abortion decision and Trump's attempt to steal the 2020 election are also motivating Democrats to vote. As such, measures to "restrict" voting, like fewer voting days or requiring people to remember to bring ID, favor Democrats, because they're more motivated. It's why Democratic politicians outperformed the polls in 2022 and probably will again this year. I don't understand why you're complaining. Originally Posted by Tiny

As blackman keeps pointing out, if you didn't have such a casual relationship with the facts, you'd be easier to get along with. 1560 fraudulent votes nationwide in 40 years is miniscule. When that's the problem you claim to address, you're lying. The plan may backfire (2022 was largely about stopping stop the steal), but that doesn't change the plan. It could matter this time.

Why do Republicans want fewer votes to count? That's obvious, but maybe too factual for you.

As blackman keeps pointing out, if you didn't have such a casual relationship with the facts, you'd be easier to get along with. 1560 fraudulent votes nationwide in 40 years is miniscule. When that's the problem you claim to address, you're lying. The plan may backfire (2022 was largely about stopping stop the steal), but that doesn't change the plan. It could matter this time.

Why do Republicans want fewer votes to count? That's obvious, but maybe too factual for you. Originally Posted by yeahsurewhatev

Your argument here makes just as much sense to me as Trump supporters’ argument that he was the rightful winner in 2020.

Maybe you could provide some examples, aside from Trump and his supporters, of how Republicans have disenfranchised Democrats, instead of just saying it’s obvious? And actually Trump et al didn't disenfranchise anyone, because the courts and Republicans like Brad Raffensperger, Mike Pence and Rusty Bowers did what they should have done.

As to your claim that I'm a liar for the way I used "miniscule," you're really grasping at straws, I guess to try to feel morally superior to anyone who's not a Democrat. I wrote,

The number of fraudulent votes on the Heritage database isn't miniscule, but there are rarely enough to sway an election. And even in those cases it's a pissant local election nobody cares about. Originally Posted by Tiny

And no, 1560 is not miniscule, by my definition anyway. There were 87 cases btw in 2022 on the database, the last full election year.

Really? This forum is full of people still claiming the dumpster won in 2020... Originally Posted by 69in2it69

Thank you thank you thank you for that. I'm so happy it caught on.

Unless you had the dump truck carrying the Dumpster in mind.

1500 out of a 1,000,000,000 is statically insignificant. Minuscule even. It’s nonsensical to imply otherwise. That is 1.5 per 1,000,000. Basically nothing. That’s why the whole “make voting secure” line from republicans is false. It’s already secure and reducing that number by creating any kind of inconvenience is silly. The predicate for needing to protect elections due to fraud is simply a false narrative.

Take the 20 election. Biden got 80,000,000 votes. Let’s assume 120 of those are fraudulent. That’s essentially nothing considering 50 states and 1000s of precincts. The implication that somehow our elections are being affected by fraud is just a lie that republicans have continuously pushed which isn’t backed by any evidence.

If a super conservative group can only come up with an insignificant number then that should tell us that the premise is false.