rtcvb32: Election fraud is usually done by having poor people go into election poles over and over again with a different identity. (
people long dead, people deported, in prison who can't vote, etc), and already there's been fraud where Hilliary's opposition lost by a large margin while polls and people weren't going to vote for her.
gogtrial34987: This is absolute bollocks. Record-keeping in the USA might be atrocious, but not to such a degree that millions of deceased e.a. people would still somehow be registered as eligible voters. (That's how many you'd need to be able to have a good chance to change the outcome of the presidential elections.) Voter fraud is a non-issue.
Here's a good explanation why large scale in-person voter fraud is extremely unlikely to be happening, let alone making any difference at all in the results of any election in the USA.
I didn't delve into the earlier linkage, though I did hear Jones say using stem sells for food testing, rather then taste changing (but it's possible I miss-heard) in that notorious broadcast, but the current article is utter bollocks.
For one thing, it completely neglects the very essential reality of Interested Voting - When you need 1K votes from a pool of 300K you never need actual 1K people, you just approach the influential few that control about that much and they make all the rest.
This is a very significant issue in Primary election as "Vote Contractors" can easily shift support towards candidates they are interested in, and yes, there are definitive claims about fraud in such that can't be dismissed.
Second, the article fails to realize Law abiding isn't a clean slate cardboard issue, but rather a cultural and educative
- Quite a large number of groups don't believe rules should be followed at most cases, some don't follow them on financial or foreign matters (especially when its the state vs family abroad), while others never regard laws higher then Moral stance.
I'm not even talking about minorities here (where the democrat notion is all for expanding their rights in oppose of all others),
But even utter patriotic veterans won't feel bad about "sticking it to the man" to enhance their benefits, not to mention religious groups who directly fight laws that legislate opposing matters such as abortions and addictive substances.
Any person relating to such a group might feel it be adequate to fraud on an election that could help his cause.
Third, the notion one must use traditional media to advertise is just ridiculous - every group has it's own, mostly undistributed outside its circle, which is easy as having a closed Whatsapp group (or preaching to your followers at a meeting).
I won't be addressing the essential flaws in the system this articles makes no awareness of either, but even without, It proves nothing.