Nothing to see here, no such thing as voter fraud…

Quote:HARTFORD >> State Rep. Christina “Tita” Ayala, D-Bridgeport, was arrested Friday on 19 voting fraud charges.

Ayala, 31, is accused of voting in local and state elections in districts she did not live, the Chief State’s Attorney’s Office said in a press release.

The arrest warrant affidavit also alleges Ayala provided fabricated evidence to state Election Enforcement Commission investigators that showed she lived at an address in a district where she voted while actually living outside the district, according to the release.

Ayala, who represents the 128th District, was elected in 2012, replacing her cousin, Andres Ayala, who was elected to the state Senate. She chose to run for reelection earlier this year, despite the voting fraud investigation, but lost a four-way primary in August.

The Elections Enforcement Commission referred the case to the Office of the Chief State’s Attorney in October 2013, recommending criminal charges.

Ayala allegedly voted in various Bridgeport Democratic Town Committee elections, a municipal primary election and a state primary election between 2009 and 2012 in districts inconsistent with the location of her residence, according to the release. She is also accused of voting in the Bridgeport state general election in 2012 in a district where she didn’t live.

http://www.nhregister.com/government-and...cale=id_ID

Republicans do it too....

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/09/25/i...-2012.html

Illinois Republicans are stooping particularly low with their support for a candidate who admitted she was registered to vote in two states and voted in both states during the 2008 and 2012 election cycles.

(09-28-2014 09:44 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Republicans do it too....

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/09/25/i...-2012.html

Illinois Republicans are stooping particularly low with their support for a candidate who admitted she was registered to vote in two states and voted in both states during the 2008 and 2012 election cycles.

Both sides do it, but only one side says it doesn't exist.

(09-28-2014 09:46 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 09:44 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Republicans do it too....

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/09/25/i...-2012.html

Illinois Republicans are stooping particularly low with their support for a candidate who admitted she was registered to vote in two states and voted in both states during the 2008 and 2012 election cycles.

Both sides do it, but only one side says it doesn't exist.

no one is saying it doesn't exist, what is getting said is that it happens at such a small rate that it is not worth making the voting process even harder in the name of preventing something that happens .0001% of the time. voter ID prevents in-person voter fraud which is the only type of voter fraud these ID laws prevent represents just 1% of all voter fraud cases of which I don't believe either of these examples qualify as such.

(09-28-2014 10:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  no one is saying it doesn't exist, what is getting said is that it happens at such a small rate

Without a method to detect it, how can we possibly know reliably at what rate it occurs?

(09-28-2014 11:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 10:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  no one is saying it doesn't exist, what is getting said is that it happens at such a small rate

Without a method to detect it, how can we possibly know reliably at what rate it occurs?

stop lying, it gets tiring having to deal with it from you. people have been caught committing voter fraud in the past, specifically in-person voter fraud. how in fu.cks name can you say "there's no way to detect it" when you have people getting caught doing so.

I am NOT having this conversation again.

(09-28-2014 11:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 10:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  no one is saying it doesn't exist, what is getting said is that it happens at such a small rate

Without a method to detect it, how can we possibly know reliably at what rate it occurs?

There already are methods to catch it, you do have to give a name still, no?

(09-28-2014 09:44 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Republicans do it too....

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/09/25/i...-2012.html

Illinois Republicans are stooping particularly low with their support for a candidate who admitted she was registered to vote in two states and voted in both states during the 2008 and 2012 election cycles.

Wait... I thought there was no voting fraud?

(09-28-2014 11:45 PM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 09:44 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Republicans do it too....

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/09/25/i...-2012.html

Illinois Republicans are stooping particularly low with their support for a candidate who admitted she was registered to vote in two states and voted in both states during the 2008 and 2012 election cycles.

Wait... I thought there was no voting fraud?

read above...

(09-28-2014 11:43 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 11:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 10:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  no one is saying it doesn't exist, what is getting said is that it happens at such a small rate

Without a method to detect it, how can we possibly know reliably at what rate it occurs?

There already are methods to catch it, you do have to give a name still, no?

So if I went to your bank today and correctly gave them your name, they should give me all the money in your account, right? Because obviously that's an adequate control, right?

(09-28-2014 11:07 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 11:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 10:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  no one is saying it doesn't exist, what is getting said is that it happens at such a small rate

Without a method to detect it, how can we possibly know reliably at what rate it occurs?

stop lying, it gets tiring having to deal with it from you. people have been caught committing voter fraud in the past, specifically in-person voter fraud. how in fu.cks name can you say "there's no way to detect it" when you have people getting caught doing so.
I am NOT having this conversation again.

So if I went to your bank tomorrow and told them to give me all the money in your account, they should do as long as I know your name, right? Because obviously that's an adequate control, right?

Well if Someone who is a high profile Candidate can vote in multiple locations, just think what individuals without known recognition can do. And it does. Mostly in innercity precincts.

(09-28-2014 10:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 09:46 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 09:44 PM)john01992 Wrote:  Republicans do it too....

http://www.politicususa.com/2014/09/25/i...-2012.html

Illinois Republicans are stooping particularly low with their support for a candidate who admitted she was registered to vote in two states and voted in both states during the 2008 and 2012 election cycles.

Both sides do it, but only one side says it doesn't exist.

no one is saying it doesn't exist, what is getting said is that it happens at such a small rate that it is not worth making the voting process even harder in the name of preventing something that happens .0001% of the time. voter ID prevents in-person voter fraud which is the only type of voter fraud these ID laws prevent represents just 1% of all voter fraud cases of which I don't believe either of these examples qualify as such.

That's a lie.

(09-28-2014 11:07 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 11:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 10:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  no one is saying it doesn't exist, what is getting said is that it happens at such a small rate

Without a method to detect it, how can we possibly know reliably at what rate it occurs?

stop lying, it gets tiring having to deal with it from you.

I never see you say that to timmy, mach, fit, imbizzle, umemphis, or ucf. Why not?

Quote:I am NOT having this conversation again.

Then stop denying facts.

(09-29-2014 03:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 11:07 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 11:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 10:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  no one is saying it doesn't exist, what is getting said is that it happens at such a small rate

Without a method to detect it, how can we possibly know reliably at what rate it occurs?

stop lying, it gets tiring having to deal with it from you. people have been caught committing voter fraud in the past, specifically in-person voter fraud. how in fu.cks name can you say "there's no way to detect it" when you have people getting caught doing so.
I am NOT having this conversation again.

So if I went to your bank tomorrow and told them to give me all the money in your account, they should do as long as I know your name, right? Because obviously that's an adequate control, right?

big difference here is that you can't compare elections to anything else including a bank account. and besides your hypothetical doesn't even work for a number of obvious reasons.

(09-29-2014 08:52 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 11:07 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 11:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 10:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  no one is saying it doesn't exist, what is getting said is that it happens at such a small rate

Without a method to detect it, how can we possibly know reliably at what rate it occurs?

stop lying, it gets tiring having to deal with it from you.

I never see you say that to timmy, mach, fit, imbizzle, umemphis, or ucf. Why not?

Quote:I am NOT having this conversation again.

Then stop denying facts.

torchy is what a partisan thinking sh.ithead looks like.

i will gladly call out any liberal on this forum if they are dead wrong in a statement which is something I have done in the past.

(09-29-2014 09:12 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 08:52 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 11:07 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 11:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 10:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  no one is saying it doesn't exist, what is getting said is that it happens at such a small rate

Without a method to detect it, how can we possibly know reliably at what rate it occurs?

stop lying, it gets tiring having to deal with it from you.

I never see you say that to timmy, mach, fit, imbizzle, umemphis, or ucf. Why not?

Quote:I am NOT having this conversation again.

Then stop denying facts.

torchy is what a partisan thinking sh.ithead looks like.

Two ad hominem attacks as soon as the questions get hard.

Quote:i will gladly call out any liberal on this forum if they are dead wrong in a statement which is something I have done in the past.

must have missed all those posts. more likely, you're a liar.

(09-29-2014 03:25 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 11:43 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 11:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 10:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  no one is saying it doesn't exist, what is getting said is that it happens at such a small rate

Without a method to detect it, how can we possibly know reliably at what rate it occurs?

There already are methods to catch it, you do have to give a name still, no?

So if I went to your bank today and correctly gave them your name, they should give me all the money in your account, right? Because obviously that's an adequate control, right?

Your analogy is flawed. You're correct that giving ones name doesn't do a great job of preventing people from using other peoples vote, but it does do a great job of notifying us if someone used someone elses vote, and therefore is perfectly useful for the purposes described above; measuring the rate of fraud which occurs in in-person voting. There isn't any appreciable amount.

(09-29-2014 09:30 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 09:12 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 08:52 AM)DrTorch Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 11:07 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 11:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Without a method to detect it, how can we possibly know reliably at what rate it occurs?

stop lying, it gets tiring having to deal with it from you.

I never see you say that to timmy, mach, fit, imbizzle, umemphis, or ucf. Why not?

Quote:I am NOT having this conversation again.

Then stop denying facts.

torchy is what a partisan thinking sh.ithead looks like.

Two ad hominem attacks as soon as the questions get hard.

Quote:i will gladly call out any liberal on this forum if they are dead wrong in a statement which is something I have done in the past.

must have missed all those posts. more likely, you're a liar.

you have your head in the sand then.

(09-29-2014 09:11 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-29-2014 03:31 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 11:07 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 11:01 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-28-2014 10:01 PM)john01992 Wrote:  no one is saying it doesn't exist, what is getting said is that it happens at such a small rate

Without a method to detect it, how can we possibly know reliably at what rate it occurs?

stop lying, it gets tiring having to deal with it from you. people have been caught committing voter fraud in the past, specifically in-person voter fraud. how in fu.cks name can you say "there's no way to detect it" when you have people getting caught doing so.
I am NOT having this conversation again.

So if I went to your bank tomorrow and told them to give me all the money in your account, they should do as long as I know your name, right? Because obviously that's an adequate control, right?

big difference here is that you can't compare elections to anything else including a bank account. and besides your hypothetical doesn't even work for a number of obvious reasons.

In other words, you have no answer but you are not sufficiently honest to admit that, so you try to deflect.