So....Where Was All The "Voter Fraud"?

[Squink]

So there were 1904 voters in the district. That’s still not more than the number of voters in the district, no matter how you ‘define’ it.

[bup]

@zut

You sure about that?

I just took a look at your first example: Hennepin County, Golden Valley 06. The final recount numbers were 699 Coleman, 920 Franken, 285 Other, which is 1904 votes total. The original unofficial results list 1889 total voters in the precinct (actual total votes, not “registered voters”).

If you look at the top of the individual page, it says the number of registered voters in that precinct the morning of the election. For Hennepin, Golden Valley 06, it’s

Registered Voters

as of 7AM 11-04-08: 1932

which is more than 1904.

Your definition basically says that if you recount and get a higher result than you did the first time, something must be wrong. But that’s *why *you recount.

[zut]

“voters recorded on election day” != “registered voters”

Is anyone at all claiming that the number of votes counted in any precint is actually more than the number of registered voters in the precinct?

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@aldiboronti

One simple reason that the media weren’t awash with stories of voter fraud this time round.

The Democrats won the election.

Rubbish. Republicans were alleging voter fraud even before they’d lost the election. The reason there were no voter fraud allegations is that the election wasn’t close.

[bup]

@zut

“voters recorded on election day” != “registered voters”

Is anyone at all claiming that the number of votes counted in any precint is actually more than the number of registered voters in the precinct?

OK, I understand what you’re saying now, and my measure of voters is imperfect. Where did you get your figure of 1889 original voters for Golden Valley Precinct 6?

Where did the WSJ get their figure of 25 precincts with fewer signatures than votes?

[zut]

For the first, I thought I got it from the same place you were looking, which is the last column on this page. For the second, I’m not sure (and I should point out that I can think of a half-dozen perfectly legitimate ways that the total recount votes could exceed the “unofficial” tally of total voters).

[bup]

Well, dang. Thank you. That’s the first time I’ve seen that page.

That’s exactly what I was looking for. So no, I’m not sure about recount votes being higher than number of voters recorded.

I’ll have to go back through my list tonight with that. Everyone still agree that if it’s in precincts where Franken did not gain absolute votes, it’s still silliness?

Thanks again.

[Sinaijon]

@zut

For the second, I’m not sure (and I should point out that I can think of a half-dozen perfectly legitimate ways that the total recount votes could exceed the “unofficial” tally of total voters

I’d be interested in hearing of a few. The signatures are recorded, as are the registrations. The only way for the numbers not to match up is if either of those two actions haven’t taken place for a number of ballots, either through fraud or mistake. Neither of which is ‘legitimate’.

[elucidator]

Outside of a determination to protect the definition of “legitimate”, what are you on about, here? You provide ample helpings of innuendo and dark suggestion, but…what?

Are you suggesting that the Dems conspired to sneak in a half-dozen votes, here and there, knowing with supernatural prescience that all of those millions of votes would boil down to that? Seems unlikely, the left sucks at conspiracy, they just don’t have the talent for it.

Well, then, what, exactly? Outside of some dark glowerings of innuendo, what is it that you would have us consider? A bit of plain speaking, if you wouldn’t mind.

[zut]

@Sinaijon

I’d be interested in hearing of a few. The signatures are recorded, as are the registrations. The only way for the numbers not to match up is if either of those two actions haven’t taken place for a number of ballots, either through fraud or mistake. Neither of which is ‘legitimate’.

1. The initial tally of signatures was incorrect.
2. The number of absentee ballots was miscounted.
3. Some absentee ballots were initially not included in the election-day count.
4. Some absentee ballots were initially allocated to the wrong precinct.
5. Some provisional ballots were not counted on election day (I’m not actually sure *Minnesota *even has provisional ballots, but you asked).

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

It bears repeating that even if Coleman’s creative “double-count” theory was be proven true (which it won’t be because it isn’t), it still would not be enough to overcome Franken’s lead in the vote count. It’s all a giant jerk-off. Coleman has already taken a new day job because he knows this is all just so much smoke.

[Sinaijon]

@zut

1. The initial tally of signatures was incorrect.
2. The number of absentee ballots was miscounted.
3. Some absentee ballots were initially not included in the election-day count.
4. Some absentee ballots were initially allocated to the wrong precinct.
5. Some provisional ballots were not counted on election day (I’m not actually sure *Minnesota *even has provisional ballots, but you asked).

Well, those fall under what I would consider mistakes, and not legitimate reasons why the tallies would differ.

Here’s why: During the recount, when most of you list problems were corrected, the tallies for the voters were also updated. After all that was taken care of. (absentee ballots delivered to correct places, tallies reviewed, etc), * the numbers still didn’t work out*. IE, there were ballots in 22 precincts that are still unaccounted for, even after the total voters number was updated with the recount.

[ElvisL1ves]

It’s a little more than that. Every day that the GOP can keep Franken from voting in the Senate is a day they can stall the stimulus package. And anything else.

Coleman knows it isn’t about him anymore at all, it’s about Party First.

[BrainGlutton]

@BrainGlutton

There was in 2004.

@Shodan

Repeating an accusation doesn’t establish it as true.

There was no such plan in 2004, there was no such plan in 2008. The Dems lost in 2004 (fair and square), and won in 2008 (fair and square). aldiboronti is, of course, entirely correct.

Regards,
Shodan

There was indeed, in 2004, and it didn’t stop then:

2004 US Election

BBC journalist Greg Palast obtained an RNC document entitled “State Implementation Template III.doc” that described Republican election operations for caging plans in numerous states. The paragraph in the document pertaining to caging was:

V. Pre Election Day Operations New Registration Mailing
At whatever point registration in the state closes, a first class mailing should be sent to all new registrants as well as purged/inactive voters. This mailing should welcome the recipient to the voter rolls. It is important that a return address is clearly identifiable. Any mail returned as undeliverable for any reason, should be used to generate a list of problematic registrations. Poll watchers should have this list and be prepared to challenge anyone from this list attempting to vote.[6][7]

Shortly before the 2004 election, journalist Palast also obtained a caging list for Jacksonville, Florida, which contained a high number of African Americans and registered Democrats. The caging list was attached to an email which a Florida Republican party official was sending to RNC headquarters official Tim Griffin. [7] [8] [9]

The Republican National Committee sent letters to predominately urban minority areas in Ohio. When 35,000 letters were returned as undeliverable, the party employed poll watchers to challenge the voters. Voting rights groups challenged the RNC in a case that went to the Supreme Court, but the RNC was not stopped from challenging those voters. Similarly, the RNC sent out 130,000 letters in Philadelphia hoping to cage voters there. Philadelphia is a city with a majority African American population that votes heavily Democratic. The Republicans were attempting to cage votes by people who were likely to vote for the Democratic candidates. [10]

In the Ohio court challenge, the RNC submitted a caging list that targeted urban and African-American areas in and around Cleveland.[11]

Journalists found evidence that the Republican National Committee (RNC) attempted to use caging to suppress votes in five states in the 2004 US presidential election. For example, in New Jersey RNC officials used caging lists to challenge absentee ballots and absentee ballot requests.[12]
2008 US Election

As noted earlier, the Republican Secretary of State in Michigan was found purging voters from voting rolls when voter ID cards were returned as undeliverable. In the court challenge, the federal judge ordered the state to reinstate the voters.[13] The judge ruled that the state’s actions were in violation of the NVRA. His decision noted that there was no way to prevent qualified voters from being disfranchised as their cards may be returned as undeliverable due to postal error, clerical error, inadvertent routing within a multi-unit dwelling, and even simple misspelling or transposition of numbers in an address. [14]

In December 2007, Kansas GOP Chair Kris Kobach sent an email boasting, “[T]o date, the Kansas GOP has identified and caged more voters in the last 11 months than the previous two years!”[15]

Republicans sent out fundraising mailers to Democratic voters in five Florida counties: Duval, Hillsborough, Collier, Miami-Dade and Escambia, with ‘do not forward’ on the letters. The mailers included inaccurate Voter ID numbers and ostensibly confirmed with voters they were registered as Republican. The RNC declined to discuss the mailer with the St. Peterburg Times. A representative denied the mailing had anything to do with caging. “Two top Florida elections officials, both Republicans, faulted the GOP mailing, calling it “confusing” and “unfortunate” because of a potential to undermine voter confidence by making them question the accuracy of their registrations.” Some officials expressed concern that the RNC would try to use a caging list derived from the mailers.[16]

In Northern California reports of voter caging emerged when letters marked ‘do not forward’ were sent to Democrats with fake voter ID numbers. The description of the letters matches the letters that were sent out in Florida.[17] See the caging letter that was sent out here. Many details on the letters were false; for example, the letters referred to a Voter Identification Division but RNC personnel said they had no such department. The RNC did not return calls from a news organization regarding the letters.

On October 5, 2008 the Republican Lt. Governor of Montana, John Bohlinger, accused the Montana Republican Party of vote caging to purge 6,000 voters from three counties which trend Democratic. These purges included decorated war veterans and active duty soldiers.[18]

The New York Times found in its review of state records that unlawful actions in six states led to widespread voter purges, which could have impact on the 2008 elections. Some of the actions were apparently the result of mistakes by the states’ handling voter registrations and files as they tried to comply with a 2002 federal law related to running elections. While neither party was singled out, because the Democratic Party registered more new voters this year, Democratic voters were more adversely affected by such actions of state officials.[19]

[elucidator]

@Sinaijon

Well, those fall under what I would consider mistakes, and not legitimate reasons why the tallies would differ.

Here’s why: During the recount, when most of you list problems were corrected, the tallies for the voters were also updated. After all that was taken care of. (absentee ballots delivered to correct places, tallies reviewed, etc), * the numbers still didn’t work out*. IE, there were ballots in 22 precincts that are still unaccounted for, even after the total voters number was updated with the recount.

If you would be so kind, please choose a theme for this next essay question.

1. Coleman actually won, and here’s why.
2. Coleman may have actually won, and here’s why.
3. Probably Coleman lost, but we won’t know for sure, and here’s why
4. I really, really like to type.

[bup]

@Sinaijon

Here’s why: During the recount, when most of you list problems were corrected, the tallies for the voters were also updated. After all that was taken care of. (absentee ballots delivered to correct places, tallies reviewed, etc), * the numbers still didn’t work out*. IE, there were ballots in 22 precincts that are still unaccounted for, even after the total voters number was updated with the recount.

Do you have a cite for the claim that the tallies for the voters were updated, and still didn’t work out? zut posted a link that showed original counts of voters accounted for that day. And if you have a cite that the tallies were updated, do you have a cite that they still didn’t add up? I thought the ‘22 precincts’ claim by the WSJ was to the *original *number of voters counted. Finally, does anybody know the precincts?

I understand what other posters are saying - that the number of votes wouldn’t overturn Franken’s majority, and that if it was a conspiracy, it was about the stupidest one ever - but I really want to know where the WSJ got their claim.