This cannot be possible. Election fraud isn’t real, say the libtards and the media

Ron DeSantis:

In 2020, FL ran one of the most secure & transparent elections in the US, but we have more work to do. That's why I established an election crimes unit.

We have charged 20 murderers & sex offenders who weren't eligible to vote w/ election fraud. They face 5 yrs in prison.

Watch;

https://twitter.com/i/status/1560371143118315521

Lol 20. 20 people. 20 votes OMG...must be the breaking news of the pubetards that 20 votes significantly would adversely affect an election. I would suggest that most non-moronic folks would know that felons are not allowed to vote, as well as other folks who have been stripped of their voting rights. Should they be charged -of course. But 20 votes is statistically insignificant in any election except for high school homecoming court. Certainly not in a statewide election like Florida and it's 10.46 million voters. But yeah you can Crow all you want about 20 votes from convicts.

Why is 20 fraudulent voters ok? The goal should be zero. Besides these are the ones that weee caught. There are likely others that got away with it.

Don’t get me wrong; I do not think Trump actually won in 2020. However all the talk about how there is no voter fraud and that this was the cleanest election ever is just BS. The election in 2020 involved new voting methods in many states, many of which were in violation of state election laws. We can debate whether or not the pandemic justified violation of these laws, but the fact that they were violated is not up for debate. There was plenty of opportunity for fraud.

Given that, suppose someone who was not the person to whom a mail in ballot was sent cast that person’s ballot for them (illegally). Once it’s in a drop box, how would you go about detecting that this happened? You folks on the left cry that there is no evidence, and to an extent you are right. Fraud such as I described would leave no evidence. Why leave open the opportunity for such fraud? Why is the political left in this country so opposed to taking steps to secure our elections?

This is not about 2020; we all have opinions on whether or not 3020 was legit, but nothing tangible will change. Trump lost; Biden is President. This is about making sure everyone has confidence in future elections. You folks argued that 2016 was illegitimate. We let you investigate and find out that there was no Russian collusion — Trump won a legitimate election in 2016. If you are so confident that 2020 was legitimate what harm is there in investigating any possible opportunities for voter fraud? Again, nothing tangible will change regarding 2020. It just might cause problems for future fraud perpetrators. Prevention of such fraud should be something that everyone can agree on, regardless of political affiliation.

There needs to be balance between easy access to vote and election security. Let's have the convo in the middle rather than out on the fringes.

Why is 20 fraudulent voters ok? The goal should be zero. Besides these are the ones that weee caught. There are likely others that got away with it.

Don’t get me wrong; I do not think Trump actually won in 2020. However all the talk about how there is no voter fraud and that this was the cleanest election ever is just BS. The election in 2020 involved new voting methods in many states, many of which were in violation of state election laws. We can debate whether or not the pandemic justified violation of these laws, but the fact that they were violated is not up for debate. There was plenty of opportunity for fraud.

Given that, suppose someone who was not the person to whom a mail in ballot was sent cast that person’s ballot for them (illegally). Once it’s in a drop box, how would you go about detecting that this happened? You folks on the left cry that there is no evidence, and to an extent you are right. Fraud such as I described would leave no evidence. Why leave open the opportunity for such fraud? Why is the political left in this country so opposed to taking steps to secure our elections?

This is not about 2020; we all have opinions on whether or not 3020 was legit, but nothing tangible will change. Trump lost; Biden is President. This is about making sure everyone has confidence in future elections. You folks argued that 2016 was illegitimate. We let you investigate and find out that there was no Russian collusion — Trump won a legitimate election in 2016. If you are so confident that 2020 was legitimate what harm is there in investigating any possible opportunities for voter fraud? Again, nothing tangible will change regarding 2020. It just might cause problems for future fraud perpetrators. Prevention of such fraud should be something that everyone can agree on, regardless of political affiliation. Originally Posted by Smarty1

I mean zero fraudulent votes is a noble goal and all, but statistically speaking there's no way right? That's like saying the goal of homicide enforcement is to have zero murders, it's going to happen, but we can try to keep the number as low as we can right? I think the problem is more that when you see a statistically reasonable number like this it tends to try to get twisted into a systemic issue that we need to write new laws to enforce, which generally speaking end up having direct or at least residual effects on people who haven't done anything wrong. Like are 20 invalid people voting in a federal election bad? Sure. Is that proof that there's some gaping insecurity in the way elections are handled? I'd have my doubts. Like what they did is already illegal, and if we know that they did it we should use the laws we already have on the books to punish them for that, but pushing for new types of enforcement seems like kind of an overreach in this circumstance at least.

I mean zero fraudulent votes is a noble goal and all, but statistically speaking there's no way right? That's like saying the goal of homicide enforcement is to have zero murders, it's going to happen, but we can try to keep the number as low as we can right? I think the problem is more that when you see a statistically reasonable number like this it tends to try to get twisted into a systemic issue that we need to write new laws to enforce, which generally speaking end up having direct or at least residual effects on people who haven't done anything wrong. Like are 20 invalid people voting in a federal election bad? Sure. Is that proof that there's some gaping insecurity in the way elections are handled? I'd have my doubts. Like what they did is already illegal, and if we know that they did it we should use the laws we already have on the books to punish them for that, but pushing for new types of enforcement seems like kind of an overreach in this circumstance at least. Originally Posted by anmar85

Those 20 were the ones who got caught. The left has assured us that the 2020 election was completely clean; no fraud, cleanest election ever. That seems to not be the case — this was just part of it. That’s the trick you guys play; it’s only 20 votes. The audit in Arizona was only a few hundred votes, the Wisconsin shenanigans were not enough to change the result, etc.

The issue is that these are only the cases we know about. Suppose for the sake of argument that the “2000 Mules” scenario is true. Suppose there was a widespread effort to stuff dropboxes with illegal ballots. Given that assumption, what evidence would you expect to see to indicate that this happened? Each ballot in that box would have a signature and would appear legal. There would be no way to tell that these ballots were illegally cast.

Whether or not that scenario actually happened is irrelevant; it could happen. It is easy enough to stop it; no more unmanned drop boxes. Everyone votes in person or by mail. This is just one example; we should work to find other weak points in the system.

Besides, your argument doesn’t seem to work for any other issues. The fraction of guns actually used to commit murders is statistically zero. The vast majority of guns are owned by law abiding citizens who have never and never will use their gun to fire at another human. The idea that there can be zero shootings is naive, right? That doesn’t stop the left from pushing “common sense” gun laws, does it? Why can’t we work similarly toward common sense election laws? Unless you are trying to commit fraud, why would anyone, left, right, or center, oppose measures that will make elections more secure?

Those 20 were the ones who got caught. The left has assured us that the 2020 election was completely clean; no fraud, cleanest election ever. That seems to not be the case — this was just part of it. That’s the trick you guys play; it’s only 20 votes. The audit in Arizona was only a few hundred votes, the Wisconsin shenanigans were not enough to change the result, etc.

The issue is that these are only the cases we know about. Suppose for the sake of argument that the “2000 Mules” scenario is true. Suppose there was a widespread effort to stuff dropboxes with illegal ballots. Given that assumption, what evidence would you expect to see to indicate that this happened? Each ballot in that box would have a signature and would appear legal. There would be no way to tell that these ballots were illegally cast.

Whether or not that scenario actually happened is irrelevant; it could happen. It is easy enough to stop it; no more unmanned drop boxes. Everyone votes in person or by mail. This is just one example; we should work to find other weak points in the system.

Besides, your argument doesn’t seem to work for any other issues. The fraction of guns actually used to commit murders is statistically zero. The vast majority of guns are owned by law abiding citizens who have never and never will use their gun to fire at another human. The idea that there can be zero shootings is naive, right? That doesn’t stop the left from pushing “common sense” gun laws, does it? Why can’t we work similarly toward common sense election laws? Unless you are trying to commit fraud, why would anyone, left, right, or center, oppose measures that will make elections more secure? Originally Posted by Smarty1

Couple things I want to start with. First off, can you please not act like I'm trying to trick you or something. I'm just looking at this objectively and not trying to lean into hypothetical situations. Like sure we could say that they found a couple of thousand votes out of tens of millions that were illegitimate and that could mean that there was some widespread scheme, but I could also say that every vote in the entire election was illegitimate at that point and it would mean just about the same thing, because they are both hypothetical. Also just assuming that the case presented by 2000 Mules is true just for the sake of argument is still a giant stretch to be making that I feel takes us out of the realm of any kind of measured objectivity. That entire argument hinged on anonymous geolocation data gathered from cell phones, which is not only imprecise, but doesn't really mean anything. Just because a cell phone happened to be within a few meters of a ballot box a handful of times a day doesn't really mean a lot, especially in a city where people are likely to be around the same area a lot throughout the day.


My point here is that I don't necessarily disagree that more security measures CAN be taken, but I think that could be through better surveillance of locations and better enforcement of the rules that we already have. Last time I checked (and maybe I don't know here, because I don't know the voting rules in every state) but if I drop an absentee ballot off in a drop box, it will contain my name, address, and signature at the very least. All of those things need to be validated before my vote is entered into the system against the information that the state has on me. If any of those things are wrong, or they have already been validated before my ballot submission it will be rejected. Is it possible for things to slip through either due to human error, or even potentially malice? Sure. I mean we're talking about tens of millions of forms being processed. That shit is going to happen no matter what we do. Do I think it's the cause to fear some nefarious plot played out under our noses? Nah. There just isn't really any evidence that convinces me otherwise there. I think it would be absurd to claim that any election in our history has been completely clean, that's just statistically impossible. Like even if there isn't any bad actors involved, people still fuck up and make mistakes too. I know that there were a lot of claims that this was one of the cleaner ones though, and I mean that's possible, but I wouldn't personally be comfortable making a claim like that.


As far as other issues are concerned, I mean that's not really what this thread is about, but I feel like it would still hold up. The amount of homicides committed with a gun might be statistically much lower (I don't know the numbers on that, but I'm cool at least pretending that's true), but I mean statistically speaking our country does have a lot more gun related homicides than most developed nations. I don't think we'd ever truly stop all gun related violence, because again that would be an absurd milestone to hit, but we can certainly limit them as much as we can. Hell, I don't even really push for the idea of making guns like illegal or anything (I have some personal opinions on that, but what's good for me isn't good for everyone) but we could be doing shit like buyback programs and stuff to have less of them out there. I bet even a voluntary measure would cause a drop in violent incidents involving a firearm, but if you want to get into that we should make a new thread. I just don't see those two issues really being equivalent to each other, my point is more that I don't think trying to reduce incidents to zero is a reasonable goal.


tl;dr I'm not "the left" I have my own views that aren't formed entirely by the opinions of one group. I just prefer to look at things with some measure of objectivity when I engage in anything political.

Why not require proof of identification (license, photo ID, passport, etc) to vote? It would surely cut down on fraud.



"BECAUSE MAH RITES!!!!" - A Republitwat or something

Why not require proof of identification (license, photo ID, passport, etc) to vote? It would surely cut down on fraud.



"BECAUSE MAH RITES!!!!" - A Republitwat or something Originally Posted by onawbtngr546

Well what about people who don't have a valid ID, or have the means to easily get one? Do they just not get to vote?

Well what about people who don't have a valid ID, or have the means to easily get one? Do they just not get to vote? Originally Posted by anmar85

Then the solution for that should be that the government helps all citizens who legally qualify for a basic ID card get one in order to vote. Every legal citizen should be able to have one, and should have one.



It should be easier to get an ID card than it is to vote, because ... fraud.

Well what about people who don't have a valid ID, or have the means to easily get one? Do they just not get to vote? Originally Posted by anmar85

Yes, they don’t get to vote. It’s ridiculously easy to get a state ID, if you can’t pull that off you probably shouldn’t be voting anyways.

There are many rural areas where people don't have Photo ID's and live very much an off the grid lifestyle. The courts have already ruled that they do not need to have official ID, photo ID etc., but they do have to be registered. That's likely where the comparison needs to be for voting fraud. Are you registered and not a convict (as was the point of the OP in this thread), or are you in some other way ineligible to vote. Those sources should be compared against any and all databases of voters, so those votes are void. The rest, should count. Just cause MahMah Jones who lives down in the hollow in WV don't have any ID -should she lose her rights to vote. Voting Rights Act (1965) limited shit like- literacy tests and other tactics to keep voters away. Sadly- it seems some of the ppl on this board would like to limit voting to those who own property or have only the kind of ID they agree with. Cause someone said there is all kinds of fraud- yet not much in the way of proof. None of the 70 lawsuits that Trump filed supported it. But still they cry fraud and foul. It's almost as if you've been kicked in the balls or swatted on the ass, and reply " thank you sir, may I have another"!

Yes, they don’t get to vote. It’s ridiculously easy to get a state ID, if you can’t pull that off you probably shouldn’t be voting anyways. Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

That's easy to say when you probably live in an area with a DMV nearby that has a schedule that works with your situation well, you don't have any disabilities that makes travel difficult, and happen to have all of the proper paperwork on hand (or the financial means to get replacements). Some people aren't that lucky in reality though. So they're just fucked right? No say in what goes on in this country for them. That's not even something that effects one side of the aisle, there's a lot of rural voters that would have issues if they were suddenly required to get together the information that they need and go to a DMV just to have access to their own right to vote in elections. What about the elderly? Surely you have to realize that asking them to go out and get a state issued photo ID is going to come with some pretty significant hurdles right? Do they just not get to vote now?

That's easy to say when you probably live in an area with a DMV nearby that has a schedule that works with your situation well, you don't have any disabilities that makes travel difficult, and happen to have all of the proper paperwork on hand (or the financial means to get replacements). Some people aren't that lucky in reality though. So they're just fucked right? No say in what goes on in this country for them. That's not even something that effects one side of the aisle, there's a lot of rural voters that would have issues if they were suddenly required to get together the information that they need and go to a DMV just to have access to their own right to vote in elections. What about the elderly? Surely you have to realize that asking them to go out and get a state issued photo ID is going to come with some pretty significant hurdles right? Do they just not get to vote now? Originally Posted by anmar85

Simple, you enact social programs to HELP those people get their photo ID. If they need help getting to/from the DMV, social programs to taxi them back and forth.



If someone doesn't have the required documents (such as a SSN card, birth cert, proof of residence) then the social programs will help them request copies of them. If they DO NOT or CAN NOT obtain copies of them... how can you prove they are a citizen, or which jurisdiction they can vote under?



It isn't a matter of 'they won't be able to get an ID', it is a matter of 'we (the royal we) don't want to help them get an ID to vote'.

Simple, you enact social programs to HELP those people get their photo ID. If they need help getting to/from the DMV, social programs to taxi them back and forth.



If someone doesn't have the required documents (such as a SSN card, birth cert, proof of residence) then the social programs will help them request copies of them. If they DO NOT or CAN NOT obtain copies of them... how can you prove they are a citizen, or which jurisdiction they can vote under?



It isn't a matter of 'they won't be able to get an ID', it is a matter of 'we (the royal we) don't want to help them get an ID to vote'. Originally Posted by onawbtngr546

Oh I'm all for greater access to identification, just good luck getting the majority of the people who want to require a photo ID for voting to get on board with a sweeping social program like that lol