Page 1 of 1

DFL voter fraud

PostPosted: Sat Aug 05, 2017 6:53 pm
" 'NVRA Section 8 requires states to conduct reasonable list maintenance so as to maintain an accurate record of eligible voters for use in conducting federal elections.1 As you may know, Congress enacted Section 8 of the NVRA to protect the integrity of the electoral process. Allowing the names of ineligible voters to remain on the voting rolls harms the integrity of the electoral process and undermines voter confidence in the legitimacy of elections.

As the top election official in California, it is your responsibility under federal law to coordinate California’s statewide effort to conduct a program that reasonably ensures the lists of eligible voters are accurate.'

Judicial Watch lays out the specifics: “[T]here were more total registered voters than there were adults over the age of 18 living in each of the following eleven (11) counties: Imperial (102%), Lassen (102%), Los Angeles (112%), Monterey (104%), San Diego (138%), San Francisco (114%), San Mateo (111%), Santa Cruz (109%), Solano (111%), Stanislaus (102%), and Yolo (110%).” The letter notes that the percentage in L.A. Country may be as high as 144%.

The letter contains a threat to sue the Secretary of State if Padilla does not remove from the rolls “persons who have become ineligible to vote by reason of death, change in residence, or a disqualifying criminal conviction, and to remove noncitizens who have registered to vote unlawfully.” It gives Padilla 14 days to respond, and 90 days to correct alleged violations of the law.

Padilla has been one of the main voices in opposition to President Donald Trump’s Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, refusing to share voter data with it on the argument that doing so would “legitimize false claims of massive election cheating last fall.”

President Trump has claimed that he would have won the popular vote in the 2016 presidential election if not for illegal voting, and his administration has singled out California as a possible contributor to that margin." ... -citizens/

Haha. About time.

When polled anonymously, large numbers of illegal immigrants admit to voting in elections. There is plenty of reason to conclude substantial voter fraud, most of it on the loony left hoping to get more welfare and free shit from Daddy Government. Of course someone has to contact, motivate, pay, and drive to the polls these non-citizens.

Hmm I wonder who could be doing that? Lol. Maybe the same people who think voter ID and asking if someone is a legal or illegal immigrant is somehow "racist"?

"A research group in New Jersey has taken a fresh look at postelection polling data and concluded that the number of noncitizens voting illegally in U.S. elections is likely far greater than previous estimates.
As many as 5.7 million noncitizens may have voted in the 2008 election, which put Barack Obama in the White House.
The research organization Just Facts, a widely cited, independent think tank led by self-described conservatives and libertarians, revealed its number-crunching in a report on national immigration.
Just Facts President James D. Agresti and his team looked at data from an extensive Harvard/YouGov study that every two years questions a sample size of tens of thousands of voters. Some acknowledge they are noncitizens and are thus ineligible to vote.
Just Facts’ conclusions confront both sides in the illegal voting debate: those who say it happens a lot and those who say the problem nonexistent.
In one camp, there are groundbreaking studies by professors at Old Dominion University in Virginia who attempted to compile scientifically derived illegal voting numbers using the Harvard data, called the Cooperative Congressional Election Study.

On the other side are the professors who conducted the study and contended that “zero” noncitizens of about 18 million adults in the U.S. voted. The liberal mainstream media adopted this position and proclaimed the Old Dominion work was “debunked.”
The ODU professors, who stand by their work in the face of attacks from the left, concluded that in 2008 as few as 38,000 and as many as 2.8 million noncitizens voted.
Mr. Agresti’s analysis of the same polling data settled on much higher numbers. He estimated that as many as 7.9 million noncitizens were illegally registered that year and 594,000 to 5.7 million voted.
These numbers are more in line with the unverified estimates given by President Trump, who said the number of ballots cast by noncitizens was the reason he lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton.
Last month, the president signed an executive order setting up a commission to try to find on-the-ground truth in illegal voting. Headed by Vice President Mike Pence, the panel also will look at outdated voter lists across the nation with names of dead people and multiple registrants.
For 2012, Just Facts said, 3.2 million to 5.6 million noncitizens were registered to vote and 1.2 million to 3.6 million of them voted.
Mr. Agresti lays out his reasoning in a series of complicated calculations, which he compares to U.S. Census Bureau figures for noncitizen residents. Polls show noncitizens vote overwhelmingly Democratic.
“The details are technical, but the figure I calculated is based on a more conservative margin of sampling error and a methodology that I consider to be more accurate,” Mr. Agresti told The Washington Times.
He believes the Harvard/YouGov researchers based their “zero” claim on two flawed assumptions. First, they assumed that people who said they voted and identified a candidate did not vote unless their names showed up in a database.
“This is illogical, because such databases are unlikely to verify voters who use fraudulent identities, and millions of noncitizens use them,” Mr. Agresti said.
He cites government audits that show large numbers of noncitizens use false IDs and Social Security numbers in order to function in the U.S., which could include voting.
Second, Harvard assumed that respondent citizens sometimes misidentified themselves as noncitizens but also concluded that noncitizens never misidentified themselves as citizens, Mr. Agresti said.
“This is irrational, because illegal immigrants often claim they are citizens in order to conceal the fact that they are in the U.S. illegally,” he said.
Some of the polled noncitizens denied they were registered to vote when publicly available databases show that they were, he said.
This conclusion, he said, is backed by the Harvard/YouGov study’s findings of consumer and vote data matches for 90 percent of participants but only 41 percent of noncitizen respondents.
As to why his numbers are higher than the besieged ODU professors’ study, Mr. Agresti said: “I calculated the margin of sampling error in a more cautious way to ensure greater confidence in the results, and I used a slightly different methodology that I think is more accurate.”
There is hard evidence outside of polling that noncitizens do vote. Conservative activists have conducted limited investigations in Maryland and Virginia that found thousands of aliens were registered.
These inquiries, such as comparing noncitizen jury pool rejections to voter rolls, captured just a snapshot. But conservatives say they show there is a much broader problem that a comprehensive probe by the Pence commission could uncover.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation, which fights voter fraud, released one of its most comprehensive reports last month.
Its investigation found that Virginia removed more than 5,500 noncitizens from voter lists, including 1,852 people who had cast more than 7,000 ballots. The people volunteered their status, most likely when acquiring driver’s licenses. The Public Interest Legal Foundation said there are likely many more illegal voters on Virginia’s rolls who have never admitted to being noncitizens." ... n-estimat/

Re: DFL voter fraud

PostPosted: Sat Aug 05, 2017 6:55 pm
"PolitiFact's Deceptive Report on Illegal Voting by Non-Citizens

By James D. Agresti

June 23, 2017

Revision appended

Just Facts recently published a study on election fraud that found 594,000 to 5.7 million non-citizens voted illegally in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. Like other studies on this issue, this one involves uncertainties that warrant consideration.
The study is relevant to Donald Trump’s claimthat he would have won the popular vote “if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally.” Hence, conservative publications have widely reported on it, while some liberal ones have attacked it.
PolitiFact, an organization that professes to “help you find the truth in politics,” jumped into this debate and declared that the results of Just Facts’ study are “false.” To support this conclusion, the author, Amy Sherman, misinforms her readers through a combination of omissions and outright falsehoods.
The Label Game
Sherman begins and ends her analysis by calling Just Facts a “conservative/libertarian” think tank. That is untrue. Just Facts is an independent think tank that has been widely cited by a diverse array of scholarly publications. In the spirit of transparency, Just Facts states that its staff and board members are generally conservative/libertarian, but it emphasizes that “we do not favor facts that support our viewpoints.” Indeed, Just Facts has published hundreds of facts that are indifferent or challenging to conservative and libertarian views.
In stark contrast to her mislabeling of Just Facts, Sherman summons the following individuals to refute Just Facts without providing a hint about their political views:
* “Brian Schaffner, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst”
* “Stephen Ansolabehere, a Harvard political scientist”
* “Samantha Luks, a statistician at YouGov”
* “Rick Hasen, an election law expert at the University of California, Irvine”
* “Lorraine Minnite, political science professor at Rutgers University”
* “Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles”
Inconsistently, Sherman fails to reveal that:
* Brian Schaffner donated to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and also to America Coming Together, a liberal organization “heavily funded by billionaire George Soros.”
* Samantha Luks donated to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
* Rick Hasen wrote an op-ed warning Millennials not to vote for third-party candidates, because this may help Donald Trump win the election.
* Lorraine Minnite donated to Barack Obama.
* Justin Levitt donated to Barack Obama.
None of these facts prove that anyone is right or wrong, but Sherman’s erroneous and hypocritical handling of labels leads readers to believe that one side is politically motivated while the other is unbiased. In reality, one side is honest enough to be transparent, while Sherman perpetrates an illusion of neutrality for the other side.
Sherman cannot use ignorance as an excuse. Before she published her piece, she reached out to Just Facts President James D. Agresti, who directed her to an article documenting the donations of Schaffner and Luks.
Indoctrination Instead of Fact Checking
In her analysis, Sherman devotes 300+ words to the views of those who contest Just Facts’ study and the data on which is it based. Just Facts mainly drew this data from a 2014 paper in the journal Electoral Studies, which was authored by two professors and a researcher from Old Dominion University.
Given its implications, scholars have debated this data at length. Yet, she allocates a mere 35 words to state that the Old Dominion University scholars responded to the criticisms “in a working paper in February“ and stand by their research.
Then, without any critical assessment of the competing viewpoints, Sherman declares the study is false. That’s not fact-checking. It’s emphasizing the opinions of people in a political camp, otherwise known as indoctrination.
True fact-checking entails learning and critically considering the full range facts on an issue. Just Facts did exactly that in a previous article on this topic and also in this new study. Agresti gave this information to Sherman as she asked questions about this issue, but her analysis provides no evidence that she considered these facts. Likewise, Sherman’s piece is devoid of any indication that she read the research of Old Dominion University scholars.
The Bogus Enforcement Argument
Beyond the survey data, Sherman argues that “actual evidence has shown” that only “small numbers” of non-citizens have voted. She bases this claim on convictions and government audits, which are unreliable indicators of vote fraud, especially when laws are not enforced and there is no reliable mechanism to detect this activity. As the Old Dominion University professors have explained:
Estimates of illegal behavior based upon survey data are frequently higher than estimates based upon detection rates. For example, survey-based estimates indicate that more than six percent of the U.S. population over age 12 uses marijuana on at least a monthly basis—a rate more than 15 times the annual arrest rate.
Moreover, just before the 2016 election, Barack Obama stated in an interview with actress Gina Rodriguez that voting records are not cross-checked against immigration databases and “there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, etcetera.”
In addition, the federal voter registration form does not require people to prove they are U.S. citizens, and when Kansas, Alabama, and Georgia tried to enact his requirement in 2016, the Obama administration supported a court injunction to stop them.
In most states, all that is needed to register to vote is some form of identification, and as California Senate Leader and Democrat Kevin De Leon recently admitted, “anyone who has family members who are undocumented knows that almost entirely everybody has secured some sort of false identification.”
In sum, Sherman’s presentation of enforcement data does not provide any objective indication of how many non-citizens vote.
PolitiFact’s Record
Just Facts has documented a litany of cases in which PolitiFact has misled its readers on issues such as immigration and crime, child hunger, tax rates on the wealthy, middle-class income growth, income taxes paid by illegal immigrants, Obamacare, and whether Obama or Bush was responsible for withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq and allowing ISIS to come to power.
In all of these cases, PolitiFact’s misinformation served a left-leaning narrative. In most of these cases, Just Facts notified PolitiFact of the errors, but PolitiFact has not corrected them.
Revision (6/28/17): The original version of this article stated that “Sherman herself donated to the DNC Services Corp, a Democratic Partypolitical action committee.” PolitiFact’s editor sent an email to Just Facts denying this, but she has not replied to a request to provide Sherman’s full name. Without this, Just Facts cannot verify her claim." ... -citizens/

Re: DFL voter fraud

PostPosted: Sat Aug 05, 2017 6:59 pm
"A Sampling of Election Fraud Cases from Across the Country":

Re: DFL voter fraud

PostPosted: Sat Aug 05, 2017 7:05 pm

Re: DFL voter fraud

PostPosted: Sat Aug 05, 2017 7:28 pm
Having to show your ID to vote is just common sense. How many people these days really don't have a state ID? You can't really do much without one. And if you're such a deadbeat loser you don't even have an ID, which means you also don't have a job, a house or rental, a car, or pay taxes, then you shouldn't be voting anyway.

NPR is one of the worst culprits of very fake news on this subject. They dedicate whole segments to how voter ID is "racist" (apparently NPR assumes non-white people are so poor and worthless as to not have IDs) or how it disenfranchises people who can't get to the DMV to sign up for an ID (but somehow can get to the polling places) or disenfranchises poor people who can't afford an ID (except that you can get a state ID for around 50 cents if you are low income). And if you are low income, you're going to be on some kind of government assistance, which requires you to have.... an ID.

Then NPR claims anyone who wants voter ID is just a conspiracy theorist who laughably thinks illegals are voting in elections (they are), or simply that they are "filled with hate". Yeah, apparently wanting to safeguard the most crucial institution in our democracy is being "filled with hate". Haha.

But then again, these same regressive leftists are the ones who are crying so butthurt over Trump launching an investigation into possible voter fraud. Hey loonie leftists, if there's no voter fraud, then what are you worried about? You should welcome the opportunity to prove yourself correct, right?

Oh, it doesn't work that way, my bad. With the political left these days it's all about lies, slander, paranoia, sycophantism, virtue signaling, group think, political correctness, microaggression triggering, safe spaces, and Very Fake News.

Re: DFL voter fraud

PostPosted: Sat Aug 05, 2017 10:59 pm
by WendyDarling
if you're such a deadbeat loser you don't even have an ID, which means you also don't have a job, a house or rental, a car, or pay taxes, then you shouldn't be voting anyway.

Even deadbeat losers pay taxes, maybe not income taxes, but there are sales taxes, hotel tax, gas tax, communications taxes, alcohol tax, tobacco tax, gift tax, etc. and many other taxes that it's near impossible not to pay some taxes. Everybody pays taxes and those US citizens, however much they fiscally contribute, have the right to vote.

Re: DFL voter fraud

PostPosted: Mon Aug 07, 2017 6:14 am
WendyDarling wrote:
if you're such a deadbeat loser you don't even have an ID, which means you also don't have a job, a house or rental, a car, or pay taxes, then you shouldn't be voting anyway.

Even deadbeat losers pay taxes, maybe not income taxes, but there are sales taxes, hotel tax, gas tax, communications taxes, alcohol tax, tobacco tax, gift tax, etc. and many other taxes that it's near impossible not to pay some taxes. Everybody pays taxes and those US citizens, however much they fiscally contribute, have the right to vote.

You need some money to be able to pay taxes. If you live off welfare then you aren't paying any taxes at all, even if you buy things like food and clothing. The "taxes" in that case are simply a small amount of the government funds you receive going back to the government. "You" didn't pay anything in taxes, in that case.

But yeah, it is too extreme perhaps to say that "deadbeats" shouldn't be voting. Voting isn't supposed to produce the best ideas or candidates, it is simply supposed to ensure that whoever is elected is representative of the statistical average person in society. To that end you want as many people voting as possible... but I would still institute some kind of minimum competency test including IQ test, and place a cutoff threshold somewhere around 90 IQ.