Talk:Voter fraud

	This Crime related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>

, (new)

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-/ ^{— 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 Paul Johnson. 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.[1] Bongolian (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Voter query

What exactly is going on here - how come the chap could vote at local level but never at national level?

I understand that people in the US have to actively register to vote (or am I misunderstanding things?) but partial registration?

In the UK 'a letter' is sent to households each year containing the 'known current voters' which can be amended (simplifying somewhat - noting which persons have now passed jury serving age, are no longer present, peers of the realm and various others who can only vote in local elections, and persons now falling into the age group 16-18 [as 'soon-to-be-voters'] where dates can be significant). Anna Livia (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

This story is about selection of electors for the United States Electoral College (one of several structural systems that enable minoritarian rule in the US). Is not about local vs. federal elections. However, it is true that a few local jurisdictions do allow resident non-citizens to vote in local elections, but citizenship is a prerequisite for voting in national and all state elections.[2] Bongolian (talk) 18:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

FYI Ballotpedia is Kochsphere somehow, or so I think I recall hearing (edit: we have a page on them). Though I don't doubt the accuracy of their typical pages. But I was warned on that site before. It's news to me that non-citizens can vote in some US local elections, though perhaps unsurprising. I think certain entire countries allow this. Chillpilled (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm the one who filled in most of the criticism of Ballotpedia. For factual information (who's running for office, voting results, laws), it's a reasonable resource. Anything that might skew against Koch (global warming) or authoritarianism (moral panics like "dead people voting") is going to 'balance' facts with nuts. Bongolian (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Quote

Should 'vote early, vote often' be included?

And where does [3] fit? Anna Livia (talk) 11:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)