Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2012-11-20 01:02||
#2 And the rotting away of the foundations of democracy continues -- the press rotting away the informed voters by misreporting or failing to report accurately, and voter fraud demolishing any fairness or honesty in the election results (which is a death knell to democracy).
Posted by OldSpook 2012-11-20 01:23||
#3 Excuse me. Ia m condused. In Farnce you have to be registered in order to vote so it is mathematically impossible to have over 100% turnout.
How it is that in Boston most of the precincts' turnouts are well above 100%?
Posted by JFM 2012-11-20 02:10||
#4 How it is that in Boston most of the precincts' turnouts are well above 100%?
Posted by JFM
Because no attention was paid to the voter registration rolls and the ballot boxes were STUFFED either electronically or with paper ballots !
When the legal uproar over voter ID's began and was upheld by courts, we knew the system would soon be failing. Meanwhile the United States Congress prepares to go on holiday. Forgive me, but I have reached the point of believing this entire process and series of events has been pre-designed and we are simply along for the ride.
Posted by Besoeker 2012-11-20 05:49||
#5 In the interim I think I ended understanding how it could be that turnout was over 100 percent. Peole who had not registered for the elctions and voted.
In other words people who were unknown to the voting census and weren't required to produce an ID. In other words people who could have already voted elsewhere, who could have been bussed from another state, who could not even have been citizens or who could not even exist.
What are the Republicans waiting to contest these results? Admittedly that would not make them win in Massachusetts but it would highlight the many shadowy events who happened in the Elmection and would open the way to an impeachment in 2016 (fotr now it is not possible since the Democrats control the Senate. Not unlees some santirail elections are unvalidated.
#6 In the interim I think I ended understanding how it could be that turnout was over 100 percent. Peole who had not registered for the elctions and voted.
Also extra ballots were marked and added by the poll workers which were not connected to an actual, physical voter, JFM. Both kinds of misbehaviour go back to the early days of our Republic.
Posted by trailing wife 2012-11-20 07:19||
#7 What are the Republicans waiting to contest these results?
In Boston, there are no Republicans; the city is owned lock, stock & barrel by Mayor Tom 'Mumbles' Menino.
Posted by Raj 2012-11-20 07:56||
Yes there are. 48274. More than enough to sue and have your Menino sent to Sing-Sing.
Anyway. The goal of unveiling fraud is not Massachusets but the White House and the Senate.
Posted by JFM 2012-11-20 08:16||
Yes but I was lookiing first for a logical explanation allowing for presenting a turnout superior to 100% and not be laughed out to jail.
Once you have the mechanism then how to get the appropriate number of extra votes is just a detail.
Posted by JFM 2012-11-20 08:25||
#10 I think it was Bright Pebbles trying to explain the UN-sanctioned(?) election observer process a month ago. And it was being argued against by the Republicans & Libertarians, who resented being treated like a banana republic (and because it seemed to be set up to focus on Republicans and ignore the endemic problems of the Democratic 'machines'.) It should be clear by now that Chavez et al have learned at the feet of the masters in the US cities, and that we could benefit from properly applied observers (though I have my doubts that such observers would/could be properly applied.)
Posted by Glenmore 2012-11-20 08:57||
#11 Uncle Joe Stalin would be sooooo proud.
Where is the delete key on (Mrs. Bobby's) I-pad???
Posted by Bobby at the kids place. Albemarle McGurque9750 2012-11-20 09:09||
#12 But it looks like not all those votes cast were counted, so someone is on the ball!
Posted by Bobby at the kids place. Albemarle McGurque9750 2012-11-20 09:18||
#13 "It's not the people who vote that count. It's the people who count the votes." (Josef Stalin)
"Experience teaches us that it is much easier to prevent an enemy from posting themselves than it is to dislodge them after they have got possession."
"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."
Posted by Voldemort Grereth1352 2012-11-20 10:17||
#14 Looking at the chart, 1400 votes cast, 1100 eligible voters, 700 votes counted.
Obviously, the person who decides which votes count is the one who "counts" the votes.
Posted by Bobby at the kids place. Albemarle McGurque9750 2012-11-20 10:31||
#15 1. Note this is unofficial. I also smell programming problems.
2. Note that in the senatorial and congressional races the first three columns are 1. Registered voters 2. Times counted 3. total votes. Is 3 the product of 1 and 2?
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2012-11-20 11:17||
#16 Democrats: "There is no vote fraud problem (it's working out just fine)."
Posted by Iblis 2012-11-20 11:24||
It was European Conservative.
Posted by Bright Pebbles 2012-11-20 12:37||