NC election officials identify hundreds of potential voter fraud cases

[Miles]

Ugh...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Multiple voting is no doubt the easiest method of fraud.  It's also one that voter ID does nothing to address.

[krazen1211]

The cheaters already won. Their 2012 votes won't be invalidated.

[DrScholl]

Now we know how Romney carried that state

[Cory]

Isn't it great that the Republicans have it in their heads that if there is any voter fraud whatsoever then it must be the Democrats? As if only Democrats are capable of fraud?

I can't help but think this is a subtle part of playing into the "those people" narrative.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

So we should have a federal voter registry?

[Cory]

So we should have a federal voter registry?

Yes.

[Deus Naturae]

Now we know how Romney carried that state

Even assuming that all of the instances identified by this study were cases of voter fraud, Romney won NC by more than 36,515 votes.

[DINGO Joe]

My father-in-law (who is a Republican) has bragged about voting in two states in the same Presidential election, and he did have residences in two states for awhile.  I've always assumed that Florida is the most likely state to have these double dippers as many upper income retirees still own property in their former state. 

[Badger]

The cheaters already won. Their 2012 votes won't be invalidated.

They did?

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html

Unless you're claiming these cheats were primarily Romney voters.

[DrScholl]

Now we know how Romney carried that state

Even assuming that all of the instances identified by this study were cases of voter fraud, Romney won NC by more than 36,515 votes.

I was being sarcastic.....

[Zioneer]

The cheaters already won. Their 2012 votes won't be invalidated.

Do you ever tire of being wrong?

[Mordecai]

The keyword here is "potential". This doesn't prove anything except that a federal registry might be a better way to track these things.

Interesting though that the Republicans seem to automatically assume there must be Democratic voter fraud when there's literally no evidence. The only reason they would think that is if they had tried the same trick before. Another insight into the deranged conservative thought process.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

The cheaters already won. Their 2012 votes won't be invalidated.

this is north carolina, so i assume you mean pat mccrory and his ilk

[ElectionsGuy]

Now we know how Romney carried that state

Yeah, because >92,000 votes were just fraud on the republican side

[DrScholl]

Now we know how Romney carried that state

Yeah, because >92,000 votes were just fraud on the republican side

Don't you know what sarcasm is? Apparently not.

[krazen1211]

The cheaters already won. Their 2012 votes won't be invalidated.

They did?

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html

Unless you're claiming these cheats were primarily Romney voters.

We have no way of knowing. All we do know is that these cheaters have permanently corrupted the overall vote totals.

[Badger]

The cheaters already won. Their 2012 votes won't be invalidated.

They did?

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html

Unless you're claiming these cheats were primarily Romney voters.

We have no way of knowing. All we do know is that these cheaters have permanently corrupted the overall vote totals.

Well, there's only several hundred individuals with matching names and SSNs that voted in multiple states. The over35k others are merely people with the same name and birthdate as someone who voted in another state. I don't believe that all of those are mere conicidences, but I suspect there are many instances of multiple (e.g.) "Mark Smith's born 1/1/60" voting in both NC and elsewhere in the other 49 states which explains the large majority of that category.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The cheaters already won. Their 2012 votes won't be invalidated.

They did?

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html

Unless you're claiming these cheats were primarily Romney voters.

We have no way of knowing. All we do know is that these cheaters have permanently corrupted the overall vote totals.

Well, there's only several hundred individuals with matching names and SSNs that voted in multiple states. The over35k others are merely people with the same name and birthdate as someone who voted in another state. I don't believe that all of those are mere coincidences, but I suspect there are many instances of multiple (e.g.) "Mark Smith's born 1/1/60" voting in both NC and elsewhere in the other 49 states which explains the large majority of that category.

With a rough order of 10,000 people in this country who share each date of birth, it wouldn't necessarily require common names to get coincidental matches.

[Badger]

The cheaters already won. Their 2012 votes won't be invalidated.

They did?

https://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html

Unless you're claiming these cheats were primarily Romney voters.

We have no way of knowing. All we do know is that these cheaters have permanently corrupted the overall vote totals.

Well, there's only several hundred individuals with matching names and SSNs that voted in multiple states. The over35k others are merely people with the same name and birthdate as someone who voted in another state. I don't believe that all of those are mere coincidences, but I suspect there are many instances of multiple (e.g.) "Mark Smith's born 1/1/60" voting in both NC and elsewhere in the other 49 states which explains the large majority of that category.

With a rough order of 10,000 people in this country who share each date of birth, it wouldn't necessarily require common names to get coincidental matches.

I agree. My point exactly.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well, there's only several hundred individuals with matching names and SSNs that voted in multiple states. The over35k others are merely people with the same name and birthdate as someone who voted in another state. I don't believe that all of those are mere coincidences, but I suspect there are many instances of multiple (e.g.) "Mark Smith's born 1/1/60" voting in both NC and elsewhere in the other 49 states which explains the large majority of that category.

With a rough order of 10,000 people in this country who share each date of birth, it wouldn't necessarily require common names to get coincidental matches.

I agree. My point exactly.

"Mark Smith" is a rare name?

[Badger]

Well, there's only several hundred individuals with matching names and SSNs that voted in multiple states. The over35k others are merely people with the same name and birthdate as someone who voted in another state. I don't believe that all of those are mere coincidences, but I suspect there are many instances of multiple (e.g.) "Mark Smith's born 1/1/60" voting in both NC and elsewhere in the other 49 states which explains the large majority of that category.

With a rough order of 10,000 people in this country who share each date of birth, it wouldn't necessarily require common names to get coincidental matches.

I agree. My point exactly.

"Mark Smith" is a rare name?

When did I say that?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Well, there's only several hundred individuals with matching names and SSNs that voted in multiple states. The over35k others are merely people with the same name and birthdate as someone who voted in another state. I don't believe that all of those are mere coincidences, but I suspect there are many instances of multiple (e.g.) "Mark Smith's born 1/1/60" voting in both NC and elsewhere in the other 49 states which explains the large majority of that category.

With a rough order of 10,000 people in this country who share each date of birth, it wouldn't necessarily require common names to get coincidental matches.

I agree. My point exactly.

"Mark Smith" is a rare name?

When did I say that?

First you used "Mark Smith" as your example, which didn't say anything about it being rare or common, but then when I commented that it wouldn't need to be a common name, you said that was your point exactly, which must mean that you think Mark Smith is not a common name if that was your point.

[TNF]

Yet more proof that, in the absence of dedicated, organized action, those with the power to grant concessions will undo those very concessions the minute those who benefit from them look the other way.

[pbrower2a]

Try these combinations:

William Smith (also Willie, Bill, Billy, and Willie)
Deborah Jones
Juan Garcia
Maria Rodriguez