Talk:Voter fraud

Topic
I'm genuinely impressed that this entirely fails to even provide a definition of what voter fraud actually is. If you want to rail against something, you could at least define what it is in the first place. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい ) 04:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree; this article is very U.S.-centric and lacks even a basic definition of voter fraud. It also should be expanded with information on voter fraud in other countries, such as Russia. Lemondrops358 (talk) 06:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Broaden the topic slightly and Shirley Porter, Lutfur Rahmen, 'vote early, vote often' and gerrymandering (among other topics) could also be included. 86.145.120.159 (talk) 11:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Another sort of voter fraud
Lying to the opinion pollsters and other information gatherers (ie not 'changing your mind at the last moment because X said something clever/'that idiot did...' etc).

Examples too numerous to mention. Anna Livia (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * How's that fraud? Evil Zionist (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 'Defrauding' the pollsters of their well-earned reputation for accuracy. Anna Livia (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to read up on the legal definition of fraud. Evil Zionist (talk) 21:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * And perhaps I am being humorous. Anna Livia (talk) 21:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Unanswered Question
To which the answer is conservatives think they're morally superior. "We'll never stoop to the demonrat level". Kind of obvious, really. 69.60.33.176 (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

2016 & before- 'They're all Rigged'
Hello♬ Gregg Phillips? VoteStand.com? Ring any Bells? www.politifact.com/factchecks/2016/nov/18/blog-posting/no-3-million-undocumented-immigrants-did-not-vote-/ &mdash; Unsigned, by: 172.58.176.217 / talk

Should we cover this?
A few years ago I read A History of the American people, by the conservative historian. I think we should have an entire page on Johnson, but this part of the book, regarding the 1960 election, strikes to me as the most missional:

If Nixon, instead of Kennedy, had carried Texas and Illinois, the shift in electoral votes would have given him the presidency, and the evidence of electoral fraud makes it clear that Kennedy’s overall 112,803 vote plurality was a myth: Nixon probably won by about 250,000 votes. Evidence of fraud in the two states was so blatant that a number of senior figures, including Eisenhower, urged Nixon to make a formal legal challenge to the result. But Nixon declined. There had never been a recount on a presidential election and the machinery for one did not exist. A study of procedures in six states where fraud was likely showed that every state had different rules for recounts, which could take up to eighteen months. A legal challenge, therefore, would have produced a `constitutional nightmare’ and worked heavily against the national interest. Nixon not only accepted the force of this argument but he actually pleaded successfully with the New York Herald Tribune to discontinue a series of twelve articles giving evidence of the frauds, when only four had been printed.

Thoughts? GeeJayK (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's worth adding I think, as well more historical background and other countries. The Nixon-Kennedy election is interesting particularly because Nixon committed a felony (violating the Logan Act) to influence the outcome of the narrowly-decided Nixon-Humprey election in 1968. Bongolian (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)