Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Wisconsin 2004: "The reports of more ballots cast than voters recorded were found to be true."
National Review Online ^ | 02/26/08 | Jim Geraghty

Posted on 02/26/2008 8:55:17 AM PST by AngelesCrestHighway

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 last
To: AngelesCrestHighway
Voter fraud is the mass of Super Delegates that will influence the outcome of almost all elections in the future
41 posted on 02/26/2008 11:41:30 AM PST by Syncro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: factmart
No body goes into the black areas to check out the voting fraud because of being a afraid.

I've posted this story before but it bears repeating.

I was a poll watcher in PA in 2004 and they sent me to a black precinct that went 100% for gore in 2000. Algore got all 419 available votes.

In 2004, me {and my fellow poll watchers} along with my snub nose S & W 38, video cam, digital camera, went to the polls.

The final vote count was kerry 202, GWB 4.

Our presence didn't change the demonRAT vote toward kerry but we did keep most of the dead from voting, and kept the repeat votes to a minimum.

GWB still lost in PA, but it was due to voter fraud. Some precincts in Philly voted 104% for kerry.

Our state reps passed a voted ID law last year, but fat, fast eddy, the pimp gov. vetoed the law.

Without voter fraud, the demonRATs would not win in PA.

42 posted on 02/26/2008 11:42:49 AM PST by USS Alaska (Nuke the terrorist savages - In Honor of Standing Wolf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

What the story omitted was the fact that in 2000 Bush lost to Gore in Wisconsin by only five thousand votes out of more than two million cast. After the election a Dem operative from New York City named Susan Gilligan, or some name like that, publicly bragged about passing out smokes and cash in Milwaukee to street people to vote for Gore. No outrage there. (smirk)


43 posted on 02/26/2008 11:43:56 AM PST by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

What we need is a federal law calling for harsh treatment of anyone convicted of vote fraud. All of the Kennedys would be in jail.


44 posted on 02/26/2008 11:46:20 AM PST by Temple Owl (Excelsior! Onward and upward.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker

I always marveled at the Iraqis with purple fingers on election day. Why can’t we do even something that low-tech?


45 posted on 02/26/2008 12:03:43 PM PST by philled ("If AQ were on steroids, house leadership would be more interested in dealing with them." Kit Bond)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: philled

That sort of thing only works in places where ordinary things are hard to get. In the US, you can get purple ink and every other color all over the place. Trust me, we don’t want the US to become the sort of place where that system would work!


46 posted on 02/26/2008 12:12:13 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker

Maybe I’m missing something, but why would you steal the ink unless you were going to forcibly dip someone’s thumb in it? To what end?


47 posted on 02/26/2008 12:17:06 PM PST by nygoose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway
So Democrats are evil corrupt b@stards. Is anyone surprised?
48 posted on 02/26/2008 1:10:46 PM PST by monday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nygoose

strong residue of a certain color ink on them. And of course there are the religious objectors (JWs). And leftist troublemakers who would disrupt the election process by showing up at the precincts with purple thumbs when they actually hadn’t voted yet, demanding records be checked. And I guarantee that in some hard core pockets of organized vote fraud, the real ink would be replaced with one whose color can be chemically neutralized just as fast as it went on. Really, low tech security measures just don’t work in a high tech country.


49 posted on 02/26/2008 2:05:21 PM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: mommya
I’m actually more worried about diebold vote counting fraud than actual people voting multiple times fraud.

Fraudulent electronic ballot stuffing can be detected far, far more easily than fraudulent registering and people voting in multiple areas.

You can use sign-in records to make sure there are the correct number of votes cast in a precinct, and the newer diebold voting machines print a paper record that the voter can see and verify when they vote.

In most cases, you should be able to detect that there was a problem, and go back to the paper trail to discover what happened. It does however require good post election canvasing, which should be observed by independent people as well as someone from both parties to make sure that it is done right.

The biggest problems are still low tech, and they exist because the politicians that are in power won't allow for meaningful reform.

50 posted on 02/26/2008 2:24:07 PM PST by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway

Probably first nature!


51 posted on 02/26/2008 2:54:49 PM PST by klamath
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway

ping


52 posted on 02/26/2008 3:23:47 PM PST by wintertime (Good ideas win! Why? Because people are not stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USS Alaska

God bless You.


53 posted on 02/26/2008 5:56:42 PM PST by factmart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: mommya
Can’t say for sure if it’s true but I bet there’s dirty tricks all around.

BS. Those of us who deal with the election fraud issue know that it comes from the Democrats. Go peddle your Rove paranoia over at DU.

54 posted on 02/27/2008 4:47:02 AM PST by LouD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker

Revelations - The Mark.... biometric


55 posted on 02/27/2008 4:51:50 AM PST by buffyt (Obama threw his turban into the presidential campaign ring! If he wins ATLAS WILL SHRUG!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: buffyt

What “mark”? Any biometric ID system relies only on what’s naturally present in your own body. Even the most wacko interpretation of Revelation doesn’t suggest that people must remove their fingerprints, irises, and DNA from their bodies!


56 posted on 02/27/2008 6:41:19 AM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: nygoose

Hmmm, I wonder why the beginning of my reply to you got cut off. Anyway, it referred to the widespread use of inks of all colors (by artists, printers, paint-mixers at Home Depot, etc) providing plausible excuses for color residue on fingers, and the related widespread availability of very effective cleaning products for removing such residue.


57 posted on 02/27/2008 6:45:08 AM PST by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: GovernmentShrinker

Good explanation. Thank you.


58 posted on 02/27/2008 10:11:04 AM PST by nygoose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson