Making voting easier can undermine electoral security
As a preface to this commentary, I should note that one of the major threads of my professional life was dealing with vote fraud – in concept and in court. My clients included Legal Elections in All Precincts (LEAP), the Republican Party and City Club of Chicago – and we worked cooperatively with the League of Women Voters, the Crime Commission and other organizations focusing on vote fraud. That issue was part of every political candidate my firm represented. I testified before city councils and state legislatures on that issue — and served as an advisor to elected public officials.
There is nothing in human society that is free from corruption. If there are opportunities to cheat or steal, there will be those taking advantage. That is especially true in the electoral process. It is particularly vulnerable to cheating because it is virtually impossible to hold cheaters accountable and to correct the improper counts. That is because of the secret ballot.
Those on the left who deny the existence of vote fraud generally look only at convictions – or simply make such preposterous claims for political purposes. In fact, actual prosecution for vote fraud is a very small tip of a much larger iceberg.
If for example, when there is an overcount – prima facie evidence of vote fraud — there is no way to know who dumped in the illegal ballots. Even worse, there is no way to uncount them since there is no way to know specifically which ballots are illegal. And that is only one of scores of ways for cheating without fear of being caught or prosecuted.
Further complicating the situation is the fact that most vote fraud happens in jurisdictions with one-party superiority – and a lack of bipartisan observers. In those situations, partisan prosecutors and judges do not hold those stealing votes accountable.
Because of the importance of election – and the ability to commit vote fraud without accountability — it is especially important that elections be structured and carried out with maximum procedural safeguards.
One inviolable rule of voting is that the longer the time between the casting and the counting of the ballot, the more opportunities for cheating. That is why historically absentee balloting – as limited as it was in the past—had been the single largest source of vote fraud. Such vote fraud was rampant in nursing homes – and still is a problem.
Every new technology for voting presents unique challenges to prevent vote fraud. One of the controversies in recent elections was the issue of voting machines being connected to the Internet – or even the ability to be connected. Precinct voting machines should NEVER be connected to the Internet – nor should they have the ports that would allow Internet connection. They should be free-standing tabulating machines … period.
Results for individual precincts can be transmitted to a central counting location electronically by hardline dedicated phone contact – much like fax machines operated in the past. The precinct would also produce a hard copy of the results to be compared later with the officially tabulated results.
Ballot harvesting was banned in the past in view of its potential for fraud. It was legalized in many states in recent years and has been subject to controversy and specific examples of vote fraud. Along with outlawing ballot harvesting, drop boxes should be illegal. They essentially remove the ballots from the chain of security.
Early voting puts ballots outside the chain of security. There is no way to guarantee that the ballot was cast by the proper voter. It puts the old absentee ballot problem on steroids. Whereas only a small percentage of voters cast absentee ballots in the past, today the majority of voters vote early or by mail. By Election Day, most Americans will have already voted.
Early voting creates another problem in dealing with an informed electorate. Campaigns roll out their information on a strategic basis geared to have a maximum impact just before Election Day. That information – and unexpected events – that can change voter opinion will occur after millions of Americans have already voted.
Early voting places an enormous – and unnecessary burden on the taxpayer. Early voting locations tend to be fully staffed with as many as a dozen workers to serve a handful of voters who show up on most days. During many hours, there are no voters.
If we are to have early voting at all, it should be uniformly limited to the four days prior to Election Day. That provides enough time for folks to vote in person. Those unavailable in the time period can still apply for an absentee ballot with proper excuses.
All mail-in ballots should be received in the polling place by the close of polls on Election Day. Those arriving later should not be counted. Requests for absentee or mail-in ballots should be received by a date prior to Election Day – so that they can be returned in time to be counted. That would also apply to overseas diplomats and military ballots.
Some have suggested that ballots be automatically mailed to all registered voters. Since many voters have no intention of voting, there would literally be millions of ballots floating around to be harvested or miscast by corrupt political operatives.
There has always been controversy over challenges to petitions, voter eligibility and the count. It is critical to fair elections that that process be open and overseen by all stakeholders – candidates, party officials and civic-minded volunteers.
One of the best ways to limit vote fraud is to ensure that the voting rolls include only those currently eligible to vote. Challenges are an essential part of that process. There is no legitimate reason to allow ineligible individuals to remain on the official voting rolls – or to oppose or prevent challenges. This tends to be a partisan issue, with Republicans pushing to remove ineligible voters and Democrats opposing.
As much as any area in life, having effective measures to PREVENT vote fraud is critical since prosecuting vote fraud is extremely limited. Making voting easier may sound like a good idea, but can result in making it less secure. We have to strike the right balance between making it convenient to vote and securing the integrity of the vote.
So, there ‘tis.
Herd
This article gets a Stop The Spin STS) rating of 5+ for inaccuracy, lies, spin, and excessive whining.
Here is the Independent Response:
1) Lets start off with some truth. Larry says, “There is nothing in human society that is free from corruption. Larry is correct. This includes all of Larry’s articles, spin, and lies, to influence you as a voter.
2) Larry says, “… actual prosecution for vote fraud is a very small tip of a much larger iceberg.” Hey Larry, Trumps AG, Mr. Bill Barr said there was not voter fraud appreciable enough to influence the results of the 2020 election. Barr melts your iceberg!!!
3) Larry makes an overblown claim with no evidence when he says, “And that is only one of scores of ways for cheating without fear of being caught or prosecuted.” Tell us the scores of ways since you are the expert!!!
4) Larry says, “Those on the left who deny the existence of vote fraud generally look only at convictions – or simply make such preposterous claims for political purposes.” HEY LARRY, TRUMP’S A.G., MR. BILL BARR, SAID VOTER FRAUD DID NOT OCCUR. The only fraud in the elections seems to have been that bogus “Stop the Steal” campaign and over 60 lost law suits!
5) Larry fails to point out that most voter fraud and recounts ended up taking votes away from Trump! Larry says, “
6) Larry is very against ballot harvesting (signing people up to vote), drop boxes (need by minority communities) and early voting (needed by many for many reasons). Larry IS very in favor of restricted voting so that white vote will count more and win. Disgruntled GOP racist people want to make sure to limit the minority vote. Larry brags about raising a black daughter, brags about how he is not racist – then he wants to limit their ability to vote. And he disguises this as “violating the chain of security”.
7) Larry did not mention Trump’s Post Master General who tried to limit vote by mail by limiting the mail processing machines so that the USPS could not handle all of the mail votes in time. This was a GOP form of election interference!!!
8) PURE LIE and supremely pithy comment when Larry says, “Early voting places an enormous – and unnecessary burden on the taxpayer. “ Our voting location was staffed by volunteers!!!
9) Larry says, “absentee balloting – as limited as it was in the past—had been the single largest source of vote fraud. GIVE SOME STATS!!!! Such vote fraud was rampant in nursing homes – and still is a problem.” THE PROBLEM IN NURSING HOMES IS NOT THE ABSENTEE BALLOT. IT IS THE UNDERFUNDED NURSING HOMES WHO HAVE TO RECRUIT VOLUNTEERS TO HELP THE ELDERLY WITH THEIR BALLOT!!!
10) Larry finally admits later in the article, “If we are to have early voting at all, it should be uniformly limited to the four days prior to Election Day. Larry knows that the GOP loses when more people can vote. And this time will be no exception – so he is beginning his whining now!!!
BOTTOM LINE: LARRY AND HIS GOP BUDDIES WANT TO RESTRICT VOTING. LARRY DOES NOT UNDERSTAND THE CHALLENGES POSED TO VOTERS IN UNDER SERVED MINORITY DISTRICTS. LARRY IS FEARFUL OF A MULTICULTURAL SOCIETY WHERE MINORITIES HAVE VOTING POWER. LARRY’S VIEWS ARE VERY OLD, STALE IDEAS THAT ARE ALL ABOUT WHITE SUPREMACY!!!
CONCLUSION: Making voting easier IS a good idea, AND can BE DONE SECURELY!!! All the GOP needs to do is approve funding for new methods – which they will never do!!!
And there ‘tis what Larry would not tell you!!!
Tom … There are times in your obsessive desire to be the Larry Horist constant critic that you reveal your amazing ignorance. This is one of those times. You know nothing about vote fraud in a real world. That is obvious. You are a gullible receptacle for superficial political narrates. You seem to believe that setting up early voting has no cost to the tax payer. How stupid can you be? I have neither the time nor the interest in addressing your overwhelming stupidities on a point by point basis.. My commentary is the refutation, Your entire posting is nothing but childish personal insults, irrelevant information and outright ignorance. You rely on misrepresenting the comments of others — from me to Bill Barr. Your all caps are nothing but emphasized hostile bullpoop. You are not at all representative of independent thinking as you repeatedly claim. You are more of an embarrassment to them Sorry to be so hard on you, but this posting is an amazing piece of ignorant trash — which characterizes more and more of you recent postings.
Larry, once again you show that you have a unique way of adding a zero value comment to the discussion. Once again, you cherry pick one or two things and embed them in a name calling useless screed of anger that you, like your idol Trump, cannot hold back.
LEARN HOW TO READ LARRY!!! I did not say there was no cost to the tax payer. I merely said our voting location was run by volunteers!
The majority of the costs would be the same anyway since the cost is in setting up the machines, revising voter roles and other forms of general administration!!!! Even the tallying does not occur until the voting day. Other than the costs that would have been incurred anyway, the remainder was volunteer!!!! THUS YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT!!! And I called you on it. Be the man and detail what costs are additional that would not already have to be spent on election day preparation and administration!!! All we did was open the doors and staff with volunteers.
Come back to me when you have something of value to add. Your comments are like used toilet paper!!!
In the coming days you will need me more than ever to keep you honest!!!
Tom … You need me to keep you educated and knowledgeable But I admit defeat.
I think we need each other for a variety of reasons. LOL
By the way, I originally thought both Reagan elections were lopsided events because of the lack of strength and policy of the opposition. My point though, was that just because an election is lopsided does not mean there was fraud. My examples were merely to show that lopsided elections have occurred without 1/6 like events.
My question to Darren was, “What will Darren and other MAGA do if the election is lopsided and many more side with “Harris hope” rather than “Donald doom”? 🙂
Tom … There you go again. Sorry, I have no NEED for you in any way. If you were to stop responding tomorrow, it
would have no meaning in my life. You would not be missed. And you are simply wrong and self-serving to even suggest it. On the other hand, I can understand your stated need for me — PBP or someone — to provide meaning in your life. You see me as a mission as you have noted… to serve as some sort of self appointed fact checker (which you are too biased to serve as) and to improve my writing (which is just arrogance and unneeded).
Larry, you are like an alcoholic – never admit you need help!!! You can be such a putz, but I like you anyway!
By the way, please tell us of these extra tax payer costs for early voting that are not already costs no matter if it is early voting or election day voting. Please teach me LArry!!! I am begging for your supposed knowledge!!!
Tom, I every editor of PBP tells lies ALL OF THE TIME, why do you even bother being here? Many of us do not believe YOUR lies, misinformation and disinformation. Check out the Gitmo files. Kamala was executed in 2017. I will give my life that what I just said is true, but you would have a party at my death, wouldn’t you? You and Babykins Stetson are exactly the same in your demention. Exactly. I also do not care about anything either of you come back with to me. You hate everyone anyway. It shows in every post you two make. You do not own any of us. We don’t believe your anti-American words.
Americafirst, I put on the uniform and risked my life for this country and its institutions. I will do as I wish. Your comment sounds like something that comes from a tiny man that is frightfully scared of the truth, and of logic and evidence. Come back to me when you up your game!
I will let the Frank part of your post for Frank to comment on.
Tom, thanks, and FYI: AF is a woman and IMO there’s no need to comment on personal attacks while she is clearly looking for attention.
Thanks for the info Frank! 🙂
Tom, for the third time. Read what people say! You persist on referring to me as a man. I was born female, and I will die female. Do not ever again insist I am a male again. That is an insult to me. I will turn the other cheek on you! You are as stupid as Larry says and triple that statement! If you persist, I will start calling you a little girl. Maybe you are and are denying it, I don’t know but something is not right about you. You and Stetson constantly demean EVERYBODY except for your low=class friends. You heard right! This site, The Punching Bag Post is NOT your domain. It isn’t your site. Where do you and Stetson get off telling the editors off trying to take over this site. That could be a crime. I am and will be watching both of you always. So, if you think this is a threat, go ahead and think it. I consider it a promise. You both have done a lot of harm to people, and I am sick to death of it – and both of you hateful demons! By harm, I mean to their psyche’s. You don’t have that right. It CAN be considered elder abuse or something even worse! I don’t give a sh*t about your danged uniform. I have an entire family of soldiers and still do, and I am involved with military affairs. So get off you high-horse. Stetson, too. I do welcome feedback when it is true, not when untrue. You only come on here to derail everyone else and to see your name in stars. (Yuk) You are not a star and never ever will be.
Hello Americafirst!
First, my apologies for not realizing you are a female. I do not aim to mis-gender a person or cause insult.
Second, this is a free forum for all. My comments are meant to give the other side. Larry is a big freedom of speech guy, as am I. We both believe in it. That is why Larry can make ugly comments of me. If you do not like my posts, I simply suggest you do not read them. No, all of my comments are protected by the first ammendment, and thus are not a crime – unless of course you are talking about throwing away the constitution and processing me in a MAGA Kangaroo Court.
I am an Independent. So I see both sides. And I write the other side that Larry does not so that people get the whole truth. For instance, Larry writes about election interference but never mentions that a major source of election interference in the 2020 election was Donald Trump’s choice for filling the national Post Master position. He picked someone who immediately on September 20 put in place a scheme to reallocate postal processing machines so that high density postal areas did not have enough processing machines to process the mail in ballot on time!!! This was a case of “the chain of custody” was deliberately harmed by the sitting POTUS Trump.
I really do not care about your threats. They come much closer to a crime than any comment I have made. This is evidence that you are a tiny FEMALE feeling very threatened by the truth! Having the full truth only harms MAGA and their warped view of what the USA should be. If I do not have this right, then neither does MAGA – but the first amendment guarantees this right, sorry for you!!! And sorry for your poor little fragile psyche!
I have a masters degree in Gerontology and know exactly what elder abuse is. An elder person willfully reading my comments does not constitute elder abuse. Please educate yourself on elder abuse at *https://www.justice.gov/elderjustice/psychological-abuse* You will find much on the subject of psychological elder abuse!
YES!!! You are just like Trump – you do not care about the men and women who wear the uniform and give up a portion of their lives to serve a greater cause of this great country. This says a lot about you!!! And about your psychosis!!
If you do not think something I said is not true, then present your counter proof, not just inflammatory comments with no source, no statistics, no referenced scholarly article or reputable news article. As an Independent, I do not view either side as being fully truthful. Again, your comments on this reveal your psychosis. Please tell me what item number in my original comment is not the truth, and present your evidence. I am always happy to respond. MAGA truth is not real truth. MAGA truth is a delusion, a warped view of the real truth. Which is why I respond.
Again, as a US Veteran, you will not stop me from speaking out.
So Tom, if Kamala wins with 100 Million Votes to Trumps 80 million.
What would you say?
Space Aliens voted?
Interesting question Darren. Thanks for asking!
I would probably say that Kamala: 1) Did a better ground game at getting out the vote; 2) Young people more concerned about social issues voted in mass – as may actually be the case this time; 3) she addressed the issues better than Trump; 4) Kamala’s policies were more favorable to the larger amount of voters; 5) Her internet and social media game was superior to Trump and his television whining; 6) her and her VP choice did a much better job at presenting hope – which is what people want; 7) Trump did a poor job at expanding his base and garnering the people’s favor; 7) The GOP underestimated the power of minority and women’s votes such as in issues like abortion, eliminating no-fault divorce, domestic abuse, the value and purpose of women, etc. This is a huge block. 8) Trump former staff of 29 of 36 being writers of Project 2025 and Trump’s lies to disassociate were not believed by the 100M people. 9) I would say that most people believed Trump was in favor of much of Project 2025 which is not what most people want; 10) I would say that seniors voted for their Medicare and Social Security not to be changed. 11) I would say hope won and white supremacy / racism / shaming lost.
I would not question the results of the election since the two sides are starkly different. I would accept such a lopsided victory due to the inadequacy of Trump being able to run an effective campaign – which is what he is doing now. I would accept the results since as Trump and Vance being so out of touch with the social issues an with the fact that we have not been a Republic for a long time. We are a Social Democracy that is now very multicultural where White is only 48% at best. His advisors are not listened too. He is recruiting felons for campaign and cabinet positions. We The People in general do not want a convicted felon running our government with a team of felons.
I would not be rioting or questioning the results. I would take a posture of silence and vigilance. I can outlast anyone for four years!
So Darren,
if Kamala wins with 100 Million Votes to Trumps 80 million.
What would you say?
P.S. There have been several lopsided victories. Nixon second term in 1972. Reagan first term in 1980. Both were GOP victories. 100M to 80M is really not all that lopsided when history is taken into account and normalized for today.
Bottom line: When you destroy faith in our institutions and justice system and form of government, then all 330M lose no matter if they voted or not, or were not old enough to vote.
Tom … You missed Reagan in 1984, which was more lopsided than 1980. Just tying to help you be more informed contributor..
Thank you Larry. I agree. I could not remember which was more lopsided.
Joe, the site continues to block on a regular basis.
There seems to be triggers of some kind.
Well, I have a long tome but the bottom line is Horist is an expert here, but has provided no evidence, statistics, facts or figure to substantiate his opinion. I say show us the overcounts, undercounts, in State or Federal elections at a significant level AND what the solution was.
Otherwise, you are asking us to believe you, an expert, without showing us examples, statistics, or even an anecdote.
I would explain more, but it was blocked. Twice.
Frank, here at *https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/trump-falls-short-wisconsin-recount-he-paid-3-million-n1249289* is an example of Trump paying $3M for a vote recount, and when it was over, the recount favored Biden – thus the original count erroneously favored Trump. LOL
In Larry’s comment about early voting increasing taxpayer dollars spent, I can find nothing. What I can find at *https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/the-costs-early-voting * is that early voting can increase the cost of a campaign. Again, the machines, administration, voter role scrubbing and other data checks, are all part of the process no matter if early voting exists or not. I do believe Larry was inaccurate on this statement because he made it sound like a huge cost. I acknowledge there may be some minor expense costs but I still can’t think of any that would not exist if we just voted on one day.
Now if you go to the PEW Charitable Research pdf research article on the subject (see below), the article actually contradicts Larry. The pdf says one of the costs of early voting is higher voter turnout in minority communities, high wage earner communities, college student communities. It also stated in Section III is that early voting distributes the vote tally over a longer period and so election officials do NOT have to hire extra wage earners to count votes and make tallies in such a compressed time frame like one election day. So early voting being an elongated time frame is actually lowering the costs of the overall process!!! I hope Larry will clarify this!!
You can find this document at The Effects and Costs of Early Voting, Election Day …
The Pew Charitable Trusts *https://www.pewtrusts.org › legacy › pcs_assets PDF* Again, I hope Larry will clarify how early voting causes a rise in taxpayer costs.
Where there is a lot of cost is the recounts.
Over half a billion by 2/21. (Wapo estimate)
Anytime anyone touches a machine, especially if they log on; you need to recertification to new or but new.
Yes, I can see the recount costs. But that is not due to early voting, as Larry implies. You are correct that the recounts are getting insane! I expect Trump will again force many if he loses!
Larry, your earliest recollections of voting comes from Chicago and Mayor Richrd J. Daley’s shenanigans at that time. A remark that may have been a joke was possibly not a joke commented on vote count accuracy. It was said that Daley himself promoted his elections robustly encouraging Chicagoans to vote early and vote often. Your cynics perspective on voting procedures and current methods commonly used in the tabulation of votes is somehow flawed. Therefore, open to and susceptible of fraud. Where is the evidence of systemic fraud in America? Here and there ballot mishandling has been reported, but the numbers were few and not material in number. These case were not assessed as premeditated efforts in throwing an election. Human error appeared as the culprit not election stealing.
This issue is really a non-issue considering the votes are cast by the 100’s of millions across the country and the counting error margin historically has been infinitesimal.
Technology has been scrupulously employed and safeguards attached ensuring accurate and efficient election counts. Examples that America is not a third world banana republic as you infer are the two most recent elections. 2016 DJ Trump lost the popular vote, but came away with a win with the Electoral College vote count in his favor. A rare event, popular vote cancelled by the Electoral College delegate votes. Why an anomaly of our Democracy has the popular vote by we the people overturned by state appointed delegates’ votes is the question lacking common sense answers. the fact that Trump gained the presidency on a technicality (Constitutional glitch) gives our Republican friends reason enough to approve of this mysterious and odd American tradition. Project 2025 in its 900 page weighty doctrine never once make mention of the ol’ Electoral College. How many other deficiencies were missed and overlooked by those Larry refers to as a “Think Tank. Tank is what they intend for Democracy as we now know it in America. Think the document that is the result of conservative minds numbering less than representative of the many, should make policy for the benefit of one party, their own, if and when Trump has the majority vote? As an Independent objective minded thinker I find the thought troubling if not terrifying that the relative few had assumed thy possessed sufficient authority for developing, publishing, and ultimately overseeing implementation of their product, Project 2025. Audacious arrogance not heard of since McCarthy-isms anti-Communist insanity infested and sickened America, until Trump’s lies and outrageous personality negatively influenced people most vulnerable to his Con.
His slimy coarse salesmanship and crude language should have sent our bright red flags in 2015 when he made his way onto the Federal Politics landscape. Republicans swallowed his bait, hook, line, and sinker. You all did not want to see and hear the red flags that encouraged his con through the 4 years he was president.
Then came Project 2025, more Trump influenced claptrap garbage thinking that cannot pass congressional muster. If Trump did attempt policy change and civil servant employee upheaval, he and his minions would find a wall of bi-partisan opposition.
Elections have history behind them, they work and will continue working every four years as regular as clockwork. Larry, you say you have made your long career in politics suspiciously on guard watching elections with high expectation of fraud appearing and invalidating vote ballots if not the legality of an entire election. That a very low bar for the election process we the people trust and have confidence in. no major fraud was uncovered in either election Trump was a candidate in. Conspiracy theories abound that began with lies invented for Trump’s benefit and continue to this day rewarding underserving Trump.
Your cynicism has its roots clinging to past issues going back to your day in Chicago and it then corrupt Daley administration. Possibly you had grounds for distrust then and in that situation. Today, not so much, as the evidence does not follow your opinion. You need overwhelming proof of guilt from laws being broken. Otherwise only those partisan sceptics and those always suspicious in mind toward others’ opinions will listen.
My impression of your ability to accept something not of your opinion or not of your creation is low to not a chance, buddy. Therefore, when you are presented with sufficient, if not a mountain, of truth in facts to prove without a doubt that what you believe is wrong and the other opinion happens to be correct. You will remain loyal to your original opinion, particularly when yours runs 180 degrees contrary.
At least on PBP, you will not in civil generosity say that you are willing to agree to disagree. I wouldn’t think you are the ornery curmudgeon you portray in your commentary posts and personal disparagement you relish dispensing, just because you can without penalty. Despicable you. Your silly picture to the contrary appearing with smiley face.
AC … My involvement with vote fraud may have started in my early days, but it carried through more recent years.
AC, I lived in Chicago, North Chicago at the Great Lakes Naval Station during the older Mayor Daley period, and I can attest that there was a great feeling that older Mayor Daley was crooked and dishonest. Much of it seemed to be centered on shifty contract awards and paybacks in the form of cash and votes. It was not unusual to hear of employees being strong-armed by their boss to vote for Daley who was feeding the boss lucrative contracts. So I do understand Larry’s interest in voter integrity. I think the Trump lies about stealing the vote, etc. have reactivated the old fears and suspicions of Larry’s Chicago days. This is one of many ways Trump gets into people’s heads.
“If for example, when there is an overcount – prima facie evidence of vote fraud — there is no way to know who dumped in the illegal ballots.”
So, how do you suppose someone can “dump in illegal ballots”? Because there are drop boxes, or mail in ballots? Because someone collected a handful of ballots from a nursing home? Every one of those ballots has an outer envelope with identifying information. They are checked against voting rolls and verified before they are added to the countable ballots. The early ballots are opened and counted after the close of polls, with multiple witnesses. If the outer envelopes are unclear or don’t match the voter rolls, they can be challenged or thrown out.
I live in a small town, and volunteer to count ballots after the polls close. There are two copies of the voter rolls – one is checked off (by two people) when a person is handed a ballot, and the other (again by two people) when they hand in their vote. It is conceivable that a person can take a ballot and decide not to vote, but that rarely happens. If the number of votes is more than the number of ballots handed out, it’s probably a human mistake in counting the lines, and they’ll recount the lines and the ballots. In my experience (also as a state rep, who attended multiple close-race ballot counts), when recounting ballots the total never changes by more than 4 or 5 out of a race with several thousand ballots. It’s not fraud, it’s not systemized, and I think I’ve only seen one result reversed because of a recount (the two top contenders were only a handful of votes apart).
Most changes in counting ballots occur because of voter error – they may erase and change their vote, and it may be hard to interpret. In the group of 3 people counting ballots (usually 100 ballots to a group), we’ll call over the election official to clarify “intent”. If someone makes an “indentifying mark” or signs their ballot, it is usually thrown out as “spoiled”. Again, this sort of thing rarely happens, and it doesn’t alter anything if the race is not closer than a half-percent.
But Larry knows all this. He’s taking the Republican side that it shouldn’t be easy to vote, and that all Democrats are out to cheat. In reality, Republicans tend to get a greater percentage of votes than their numbers predict. How does that happen? By making voting difficult for rural or inner-city voters (who happen to generally vote Democratic), by not having enough polling places, by limiting the amount of time that people can vote, by scrubbing the voter rolls just before elections, by insisting that the only “real” way to vote is to show up in person on voting day. Which way is cheating – the miniscule possibility that one or two people might vote twice (which almost never happens), or by manipulating the polling places so that Democrat-leaning areas get 10,000 fewer votes?
Republicans insist that illegal immigrants are voting – even though there is zero evidence of that happening. “But wait!” you cry, “what about all those illegals that Trump says voted in the last election? They interviewed some immigrants on the internet that said they were registered to vote”. Well folks, Trump lies… and he gets lots of Republicans to lie for him, because if they don’t, he will sabotage their elections, so they toe the line.
In the time I was in politics, and the rest of the time as an observer, I’ve always seen that Democrats run drives to get more voters, no matter which party. Republicans have always tried to limit votes to likely Republican voters.
Joseph S Bruder … You join Tom in being abysmally ignorant of how vote fraud works. Because you do not personally experience vote fraud in your small town does not mean it does not happen — usually in more urban settings. The vast majority of polling places run honest elections. But not all. At least you admit that you have no experience in dealing with vote fraud. That is obvious. If your small town has not had any bank robberies his year, would you think bank robberies do not exist?
And you say “Republicans have always tried to limit votes to likely Republican voters.” That is the common practice of BOTH parties. It is called Get Out The Vote efforts. And voter registration drives are open to all voters by law, but BOTH parties concentrate on geography and demographics more favorable to them. Your hardcore leftwing Democrat political life has left you as a parrot of the party propaganda machine. I have to believe you must know better.
When Democrats do GOTV, they encourage EVERYBODY to register, not just democrats.
So, Mr. Voter Fraud Expert, tell me the supposed mechanism that people can dump a load of ballots into the mix? If they’re good enough to do that, why can’t they also change the vote totals?
I do not know if my efforts count as GOTV, but I have often been called in as a trusted person to help seniors in nursing homes vote. I read the choices and make sure they complete the form but I do not discuss anything about the candidates. That is why I wrote about my nursing home experience. IT is not the absentee ballot that is the problem. The problem can occur when the nursing home (we call it SNF’s) do not explain the process and what they can and cannot do.
I hope Larry will educate us by answering your question.
As usual, the “award winning debater” (or “Master baiter”, as we call him here) shuts his pie hole when asked to provide facts. Tell me Larry, what awards did you win for debating? Most insults in a single sentence? The Gish Gallop award for most false assertions in a debate? I think Trump has surpassed your record by now.
Tell me what your experience is with voter fraud. You showed a lot of support for Trump’s claims of voter fraud, but EVERY ONE of those turned out to be fraudulent, with no evidence to back them up, and in many cases, outright lies about those claims. Even Gilbertson got on the bandwagon and wrote about the conspiracy theory that people in Italy used military satellites to make US voting machines switch votes for Biden. You guys don’t have a bit of critical thinking among the lot of you.
You like to call people “abysmally ignorant” (have seen it a few times in the last few days), but you show your own ignorance when you make paranoid assertions that you then fail to back up with real evidence.
JSB: just a PFG (pure xxxxx guess), but I imagine more voter fraud the closer to local you get. As in more in the state than fed, more in county than state and when you get to electing Barney Fife, look out.
I am guessing the Horist work follows this trend.
*https://www.reuters.com/article/fact-check/re-examining-how-and-why-voter-fraud-is-exceedingly-rare-in-the-us-ahead-of-th-idUSL1N2XP2AI/* Good summary from neutral, factual reuters.
I cannot find the stats tween locales of Fed, State, and Local, but still think I am right in that the smaller you go, the larger the threat of fraud.
Joseph S Bruder…More bullcrap. You write “You showed a lot of support for Trump’s claims of voter fraud,” You are just making that up. I never showed support for Trump’s various claims of vote fraud. The closest I came was noting that they changed the rules in PA to allow late arriving ballots — and that is a fact. At the onset I said the false elector scheme was illegal and stupid. I never opined on the issue of the popular vote and Trump’s claim of winning it. I have long said that Trump should give up on his claim. I have said that Biden is the legitimate president by virtue of his election in the all-important Electoral College. You are just lying about me to get out of the ignoramus hole you dug for yourself.
Frank Stetson … You are correct that most vote fraud is for the benefit of local candidates. That is because one party political machines rely on stealing votes to retain power. But because states and local election operations also run the federal offices, there is some vote fraud involved. And remember… flip one state and you may flip the national results. Most scholars believe the 1960 presidential election was flipped due to vote fraud in Illinois and Texas. Many Democrats allege that the vote count in Florida was not accurate in 2000 and cost Gore a win. I have not opined on 2020 — or defended Trump’s court cases –because I was not convinced that there was sufficient fraud to flip the election — although there was fraud as is always the case. And we still see an occasional person being charged.
Frank, re: most voter fraud is local – I don’t buy it. Most voting is administered at a local level, and votes are checked to the point that a 1 vote mismatch is usually chased down until they find an error. That’s not to say that some Maga idiots are not out there planning to not certify results they don’t like or send alternate electors for state offices.
The bigger voter fraud is at a higher level, where the Republican Party keeps finding ways to disenfranchise likely Democratic voters. Given the direction of the Republican Party, they may have to disenfranchise ALL Democratic voters to keep winning.
Jsb: can’t say you’re wrong; I can find no stats.
JSB, thank you for your service to our great and honest election process! Vote counting and monitoring people are high up on my list of esteemed persons! I also have done similar service and can attest to your testimony. It is a thankless job in many ways with only the personal satisfaction of knowing we helped this great country stay great through letting the people choose, and counting their choices for a final result!
Like your district, here in my NC District we put any questionable mail ins aside and only use them when there is a possibility that the tally of mail ins that were quarantined is greater than the difference between the contestants.
I appreciated your comment, and it was interesting to read. You stated your case very eloquently! I consider Larry’s comment about joining Tom to be an honor! Even though Larry was unnecessarily rude and childish in that remark, it is an honor as a fellow Independent to be joined in opinion to you!!
What if only taxpaying humans could vote?
You might disqualify legitimate voters like Trump who did not pay taxes for two years, Zuckerburg and several others who do not pay taxes. There can be several reasons people do not pay taxes. This might also include those who are below FPL, those over 85, etc. Also if paying taxes was the only gating factor, then many non-citizens who work legitimate jobs, pay taxes but do not have green cards yet would be able to vote. This could become a big quagmire. IF you go far enough into US history you will find that only property owners were allowed to vote. This also became a problem.
Once again, will try printing portions to cut out the Gilbertson fake free speech ban.
PART 1
“that one of the major threads of my professional life was dealing with vote fraud – in concept and in court. “ Is that opposed to your current “unprofessional” life? (calm down, just funnin).
Seriously though:
This article is replete with opinion and short of factual support. It’s not that Horist is saying something that is not true, much of it has to be. But he has not one fact, statistic or quote in support of his opinions, some of which are so “the sky is blue” generalizations. The fact that Horist made a living selling this stuff, makes him an expert, but does not make it so necessarily, or make it the truth. Facts, statistics, observations, expert testimony —- that’s what support folk’s claims and opinions. Horist wants us to trust his unsubstantiated opinions and conclusions because he’s an expert and not because of evidence provided. I say: show us.
For example: “There is nothing in human society that is free from corruption” is pretty hard to argue false, but Horist does not show it to be true.
PART 2
Now that you believe that Captain Obvious moment, let’s extend it with: “That is especially true in the electoral process. It is particularly vulnerable to cheating because it is virtually impossible to hold cheaters accountable and to correct the improper counts. That is because of the secret ballot.” Again, without support, why would one agree this to be true UNLESS one already believes. What numbers support the “especially true” over other things like cheating on your taxes for charity contributions. Come on, fess up, hasn’t everyone fudged even a little bit there? Rounded up? We know we hold cheaters accountable all the time. And WHY does the secret ballot pave the way? I mean it’s not a secret who goes into the booth, is it? It’s not a secret that I signed my mail-in, they check it against the signature on file.
Then we continue the extension of opinion without factual support in saying: “Those on the left who deny the existence of vote fraud generally look only at convictions – or simply make such preposterous claims for political purposes. In fact, actual prosecution for vote fraud is a very small tip of a much larger iceberg.” Again, no support and now we have extended the unsupported claims to a larger, unseen, unknown, conspiracy of the “much larger iceberg……” oooooh
“If for example, when there is an overcount – prima facie evidence of vote fraud” blah blah blah… Great conspiracy. How about some reality: * https://www.xxxxxxxxx.com/factchecks/2020/nov/23/donald-trump/no-there-have-not-been-more-votes-people-who-voted/*
I cannot find the process for mediation nor an example of this happening at the State or Federal level.
Then he states: “In those situations, partisan prosecutors and judges do not hold those stealing votes accountable.” Come on Horist. You seem to have examples, at least you sound like this happens quite a bit. So, show us.
So with all of this opinion, without a shred of support, Horist concludes: “Because of the importance of election – and the ability to commit vote fraud without accountability — it is especially important that elections be structured and carried out with maximum procedural safeguards.” OK, you could have skipped everything, printed this paragraph alone and everyone will say, “sure, makes common sense” as if the conclusion proves the lead up. It does not. And never will.
I will stop, but I think you get the point. Horist has a point: voting should be safe, secure, and devoid of cheating and corruption. Bravo. BUT you have to find root cause — and not just concepts, but evidence — and then let’s go about fixing it.
Until then, I still support mail-in, early voting, and ultimately, internet voting for all. Why not: safe enough for Mastercard, Bank of America, Social Security and the IRS — safe enough for me. But enough with “the sky is falling” if you don’t have pieces of it on the ground to show us.
Show us. You say you have a lifetime of experience, show us.
Frank, I had the same problem verifying what Larry said. I tried to find cases where taxpayer costs went up substantially due to early voting. I could not find. What does go up is campaign costs which the GOP has railed against. What I did find was that because of the elongated voting period, the fact is that election officials do not have to hire extra help to tally because their resources are fine for the longer period. The Pew Research and one other, I think Heritage, both said it reduces overall process costs and stress.
And then Larry makes this statement, ““Those on the left who deny the existence of vote fraud generally look only at convictions – or simply make such preposterous claims for political purposes.” where I pointed out that AG Bill Barr said that no voter fraud had occurred. So my point on this one was that Barr was not from the left, he was a Trump appointee and he was agreeing with the left.
Yeah, this article is ripe for criticism.
Tom, I posted the cost for Trump recounts, over half a billion. They fucked with the machines and many were compromised requiring replacement on taxpayer dime.
Think i messed up my email so it’s in waiting for moderation.
Well all of these costs with recounts may be true. But were these costs and recounts due to early voting? Or due to mail in voting?? No, they were due to Trump’s narcissism! He would not accept he lost even after Barr and some of his family told him so! I want Larry to be accountable for his statement on early voting raising tax payer costs, he is the expert, lets hear what he has to say.
The biggest chain of custody election interference I saw was in Sept. of 2020 Trump replaced the Post Master General in June 2020. The issue became known in Sept due to an Aug Congressional inquiry. Read about it at *https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-election-2020-ap-top-news-politics-us-news-dc647214b5fc91cc29e776d8f4a4accf* His new postal minion promptly made a cost reduction case and packed up mail processing machines because according to him they were not needed! He knew damn well mail in votes would not get processed in time, thus not counted – which is the goal of the GOP!!! There are many stats that show the more the people mail in vote, the better Dem chances are of victory.
I agree with you Frank! I think Larry is just in favor of restricting the vote any way he can, and he is attempting to groom us!!!
This one seemed to choke on the p o l i t i f a c t link which I xxxx’d out in p2.
Frank, I think if you leave off the https:// at the beginning it won’t get recognized as a website, and it will just print as normal text. If it does pick up the “www” part, replace it with ZZZ which is pretty obvious to people but just junk text to a website filter. I’ve gotten links on here before by doing that.
JSB: usually, a simple adder at beginning or end of the url does the trick; this one seemed to be the work but I really did not test thoroughly; what’s the need. JG will never accept that his site is broken and his words on free speech extremism are broken too. He does not care and thinks he’s right, I (and others) are wrong. And his closed mindedness is good enough for him. It’s good to be King.
The above back and forth of scored as a tennis match, Horist lost each set and eventually the match, Admittedly, Horist did not have the advantage that his opposition had being their three to his one. However. Horist prefaced the match with a statement alleging superior expertise and professional status. Hence his prowess would overcome the 3 on 1 matchup.
This match, like so many previous dustings the 4 contenders have been engaged in, happens to be a he said, they said circumstance.
On the one hand, it’s the reader who is the arbiter. Larry’s articles are pieces on current issues as perceived by Larry the personal opinion lens. That said, Larry’s comments are the stuff of his opinion and not a scholarly treatise on the subject. Scholarly works ordinarily contain references for verification of certain facts stated in Larry’s article.
Given that Larry’s commentaries’ points are drawn from his opinion alone, proof of facts as truth is purely voluntary. Larry depends on status, professional experience, and great life time achievement in the conservative movement within the Republican Party.
This all he has when he, like Trump speaking to a rally crowd, comments to PBP’s target audience, conservative like minded folks.
Larry is not an evangelist for the conservative cause. He purposes his commentaries for the enlightenment of his fellow believers in conservatism. So that they shall know the way and honor the teacher.
In that contextual framework Larry’s design means to tell his story according to his own opinion. Of his opinion in all subjects he has confidence that what he believes is correct and true. And, because he is Larry Horist expert pundit his reputation precedes him. On that reputation is presumed knowledge accumulated sufficient to justify not providing evidence of facts. As I stated above, Larry is stating his opinion on the issue known as election fraud. And, opinions come in a variety of persuasions. Individuals reading another’s opinion on election fraud may or may not be of the same opinion.
PBP as an avowed conservative podcast as a past practice established open mic not limited to just conservative commenters.
Some politically contrary non conservative voices should be expected. And, those contrary opinionated voices made themselves heard.
PBP’s reception is, and has been, in a word inhospitable. when The holders of other opinions not in agreement read PBP’s writers’ article comments. As is a reader’s right one is free to choose to comment and voice their own opinion, especially when the reader means to offer a rebuttal to the piece’s main premise and a challenge for the author’s consideration.
This is the time when the reader puts themself in the breach. How a piece’s author receives the reader comes through clearly when or if the author may choose to comment in reply. That choice to reply or ignore the reader’s comment is at the author’s discretion as is the tone and the manners expressed in a comment’s wording. On the whole, PBP and you, Larry, show inhospitable mean tempered antagonism toward myself and other readers.
Your comments’m abuse filled demeaning characterization of a reader’s intelligence and integrity are grossly inappropriate particularly coming from you, a man portraying himself as better and more powerful than any person not in lockstep agreement
You call your readers “stupid”. Outside in the real world and not in your PBP silo the general public would not condone your behavior. Calling bright intelligent and brave questioning persons “stupid” happens to be your stupidity’s display and bad character.
It not unmanly or weak for you should you admit your differences in opinions, but commit with the other person that you both will agree to disagree on the differences.
My commits, I admit, are way too verbose. And, you have made remarks calling it word salad and a rant. On that score I am in good company. Tom, Frank, and others who disagree in comments, we all share in receiving your boilerplate similar dismissal of intelligence.
Again I say, it must be awful to be you. despicable you.
AC … LMAO What a pitiful and bitter old man harangue parading as a critique. I know you cannot allow your self to believe that ALL your writing has no impact on me or much of anyone else. Awful to be me?? LOL I have had — and still have— a wonderful very active happy life filled with a wide range of experiences — and surrounded by friends of diverse backgrounds (including left-wingers) and a wonderful and interesting family. I write opinion articles — and I have a high respect for honest opinions and civil debate You and others, however, have personalized your attacks with misrepresentation and childish insults. And the obsession you and others have in playing verbal combat is not admirable, but amusing. You Frank and Tom are at this game so much that it is hard to image having time for a broader life. I am flattered by the constant attention, but wonder why so much of your life is about PBP, its owner, writers and especially me. Perhaps my less admirable trait is giving you guys a poke now and then just to see your hair go ablaze — assuming you have hair, LOL At least Frank has — for the most part — given up the childish insults. So, whether you understand or not, I am not into this emotionally. I have been involved in politics for many years and have a thick skin when it comes to critics who attack from the spleen and not the brain. Inaccurate and unfair
criticism is the easiest to dismiss. Awful to be me? I am happy to be me — and thankful. You should be so lucky.
Larry, I am glad you enjoy being you. On the flip side, your “inability to imagine me having time for a broader life” is more about your small mind, and not an issue of my large life. Your difficulty imagining something reveals that you are losing ability, not that we do not have satisfying lives.
And yes, you do need us to keep you honest. What would all of the MAGA mindless do if all they got was your side of an issue! They would be little mini Larrys!!!
By the way, what year was that pic taken?
No need for a back-handed compliment, “for the most part” means 100% when it comes to you Larry. Pretty damned close to 100% for everyone else except THE DUMPSTER. This fake journalist, fake conservative, fake American, is a tosser for sure.
And your response so far is to continue the tirade of name calling in what you, yourself call: “childish insults” as often as you can it appears.
It’s going on weeks since I lowered myself calling you names, M. Horist.
Let it go. Quit picking at it.
I am proud of you Frank!!! Keep up the good work!!!