Dead People Voting in Presidential Election?

The following link describes the voting results for the City of Boston. In most precincts, more people voted than were registered-are these people dead who stay enrolled (after their passing)?
Massachusetts law requires that voters give a street address only-no identification or proof of citizenship is required.
Interesting…where could these “phantom” voters be coming from?:cool:

“Cards cast” is the number of pieces of paper, not the number of votes. There were two sheets to the ballots; the number of votes cast is under “total votes.” The software is spitting out a meaningless “turnout” statistic.

ETA: Another thread on the fake scandal.

Out of curiosity, care to share the source of this disinformation that prompted you to post?

All of the claims I’ve seen of this kind of thing – “more people voted than were registered!” – have turned out to be misunderstandings on the part of the people making the claims. But they’ve made me wonder: is it even plausible for that kind of thing to happen? Here in Nevada, we have to sign in a registration book next to a copy of our signature; the worker checks that the signature looks passable and then also marks our name off of a separate list of registered voters in that precinct. So it seems like, even without a voter ID law, you couldn’t just bring in a bunch of random people and have them vote and end up with more turnout than registered voters, unless the poll workers and poll watchers were all in on it as well. Even if procedures are different elsewhere, surely they check off who has voted already from a list of registered voters, right?

Almost anyone can come into a polling place and demand a provisional ballot even if they are not registered. Of course, unless they come back within a specified period of time to prove that they were registered, the provisional ballot will not be counted.

There was a news story this morning that some precincts in Philadelphia had >90% turnout, with >99% of the people voting for Obama. Yes, these were “ghetto” areas that you would expect to be overwhelmingly pro-Obama, but the ulta-high turnout rates are still arousing suspicions, and Republicans are suggesting that ballot-box stuffing was taking place.

Sure, but I assume that they wouldn’t be counted as part of the “turnout” statistics unless validated. Am I right?

At least with the Fox News story linked to by Diceman it’s possible there was something fraudulent going on. How would >100% turnout even work? Massive conspiracy between everybody at the polling place?

If dead citizens are still enrolled, they’re still registered, and wouldn’t show up as additional voters.

Did Boston change its voting locations? That’s a more likely cause.

That article doesn’t say anything about >90% turnout, and the only real mention I can find of suspicious turnout numbers is here, where it says,

However, the >99% for Obama statistic is true. Here are the ward-by-ward vote totals for Philadelphia; you can see tat there are a number of wards where Romney received less than 1% of the vote. However, compare that to the 2008 results; McCain also received less than 1% in esentially the same areas. (And, indeed, the actual number of votes cast for Obama is roughly equal from 2008 to 2012.)

I can’t find the same information for the 2012 election, but I found some precincts in Utah County where Obama received 0 votes in the 2008 election. I really want to see the effect of having Romney on the ballot to the numbers in Utah County…

Clicking on your link provides the following numbers:

Votes for Obama: 197,382

Total number of Registered Voters: 387,142

Total votes for all presidential candidates: 250,295

(see page 7 for the presidential totals)

So in an election with about 65% turnout 78.9% of the ballots cast were for Obama.
Where’s the excess votes you’re talking about?

**Best reason ever for EVERYBODY to vote. ** If everybody votes, then ballot box stuffing becomes blindingly obvious because you end up with more votes than citizens.

As soon as I saw the right-wing fora talking about this supposed “election fraud”, I found myself wondering who would bring it up first over here. Thanks for throwing yourself on that grenade, Ralph!

Yes, but no. It would probably make sense to do that, if the person generating those statistics thought it through. But I wouldn’t count on the “thinking it through” part, since it’s probably lots of different people in different states/precincts/whatever making the call one way or the other on a whim, and it’s probably a small effect most of the time anyway.

He’s talking about the Column labeled “% turnout”, where all the figures are over 100%. I suppose you already know that, though.

ballot-box stuffing was taking place.

I had an uncle in Chicago. He was a conservative and voted republican until the day he died. Now he votes democrat.

I had an uncle in Chicago. He was a conservative and voted republican until the day he died. Now he votes democrat.
And you can back this claim up? Or it’s just what “everybody knows”?

Incorrect. Massachusetts voters must provide valid ID.

Proof of citizenship is unnecessary since the number of noncitizens who try to vote is is probably less than one per election nationwide.

It also makes no sense that anyone in Massachusetts would stiff the ballot box of Obama, anyway. Not one poll showed Romney had a chance. Obama was going to win Massachusetts, so why bother?