Donald Trump

Trump's 'Rigged Election' Talk May Backfire

Belief in electoral fraud depresses turnout.

|

TrumpLoser
memegenerator

"We've been busing people in to deal with you fucking assholes for 50 years, and we're not going to stop now," the Wisconsin Democratic operative Scott Foval declares in Rigging the Election, a video released this week by the conservative undercover-media activist James O'Keefe. In the video, Foval drunkenly discusses how to pull off a voter impersonation fraud scheme by sending folks with fake IDs to vote in neighboring states. The indiscreet Foval has since lost his job.

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump invited O'Keefe to attend the third major party presidential candidate debate in Las Vegas. During the debate, Trump refused to say whether or not he would concede if he lost the vote the November, insinuating that there is a conspiracy to rig the election against him.

"The O'Keefe videos will add some evidence to Trump's claims about a rigged election," says Joe Uscinski, a political scientist at the University of Miami. "They will give him some red meat to throw around." When asked how he thinks the public will respond to the O'Keefe videos, the Western Washington University political scientist Todd Donovan replied in an email, "My guess is that the viewers will respond to it through their partisan perspectives. It reinforces pre-existing Republican attitudes; Democrats will see the source and assume it's a hack job of editing."

In a prepublication study, "The Effect of Conspiratorial Thinking and Motivated Reasoning on Belief in Election Fraud," Uscinski and his colleagues point out that significant proportions of both major parties believe that electoral fraud is common. "Republicans are especially prone to believing that people are casting ballots they should not, whereas Democrats are more concerned that they are not able to cast ballots," they write. As evidence they cite a national poll taken in July 2012 in which 54 percent of Democrats believed that voter suppression was a major problem compared to 27 percent of Republicans who thought so. On the other hand, 57 percent of Republicans believed that casting illegal ballots was a major problem compared to 38 percent of Democrats who did.

"Electoral fraud is a form of conspiracy theory," Uscinski tells me. "And like any other conspiracy theory it is hard to disprove. Evidence that the plot didn't happen actually works in favor of the conspiracy theory: 'Look how hard they're working to cover it up.'"

How common is electoral fraud? As Uscinski notes, since the would-be perpetrators do not want their schemes to be detected, voter fraud is by definition hard to measure. Nevertheless, most scholars have concluded that voter fraud, especially voter impersonation fraud of the sort that Foval appeared to be discussing, is rare in American elections. Uscinski thinks scholars probably undercount instances of voter fraud because the undetected successful instances don't get tallied. But he also thinks such frauds are vastly overestimated in the popular imagination. Keeping a national electoral fraud scheme hidden would be exceedingly hard to do, Uscinski points out: It would be a huge coordination problem involving lots of people in very uncertain circumstances with many opportunities for blunders.

Donovan agrees. In an email, he writes: "Even if we take at face value the 'description' on the edited video of how to commit fraud, the execution wouldn't be possible. It would require thousands of voters per state (tens of thousands?) to affect these elections. Renting cars in dozens of tates to move voters to dozens of Republican controlled states, where they would have fake addresses to vote under, would require 20,000 people or 200,000 people or even more people with rental cars (or each in a car bought at an auction?) and just as many fake addresses. You would need to convince 200,000 people or more to commit a crime and assume not one would be caught." The video should be treated with due skepticism considering that Foval could be a lying braggart seeking to impress a novice politico with deeds of nefarious derring-do or the video is perhaps edited to advance a misleading narrative. It is politics after all.

What can be done to ensure the fairness of our elections—and to increase Americans' confidence that they are indeed fair? The Pew Center's Election Performance Index rates each state on 17 different items related to how well they administer their elections, including registration rates, absentee ballot rejections, and accuracy of voting technology. In their 2015 paper in the journal Electoral Studies, Donovan and his colleagues find that voters in states that rate higher in electoral quality are considerably less likely to believe that voting fraud is common. "We find evidence that administrative performance is positively and significantly related to perceptions of elections being fair," they conclude. "This implies that improvements in the governance of elections could also promote democratic legitimacy, as fair elections are a key feature of democratic processes."

A recent working paper by the Harvard political scientist Pippa Norris, head of the Electoral Integrity Project, has suggested a number of ways to improve the fairness of American elections. Among other reforms, she argues that a national ID card would address both Republican concerns about the security of the ballot and Democratic worries about voter inclusiveness. Norris points out that India provides every one of its citizens with an ID card; surely, she says, a much richer and technologically developed United States could do the same thing. Such a national ID would make it harder to pull off voter impersonation fraud, and it would also ensure that the poor, the elderly, and members of minority groups are not excluded from the franchise by a lack of proper identification. When I note that Americans have long resisted the requirement for a national ID card, Norris acknowledges that this could be problem. So would Americans prefer to live in a "papers please" world in order to ensure that our elections are both secure and inclusive?

In any event, Norris raised an interesting point about Trump's claims that the election is rigged: It could easily backfire. "Fueling cynicism about the fairness of the electoral process serves to depress voter participation," she notes. As evidence Norris cites the results from the 2012 American National Election Study (ANES), which found that 77 percent of people who believe that votes are "very often" counted fairly reported that they voted. By contrast, just 64 percent of those think the process is rigged bothered to cast a ballot. If you think your vote won't count, you're more likely to stay home.

In this election, people who suspect their votes won't count disproportionately favor Trump. According to a September Washington Post/ABC News poll, 46 percent of Americans believe that voter fraud occurs very or somewhat often; for Trump supporters, the number is 69 percent. What's more, Trump needs to attract independent voters to win. But according to the ANES, independents are more likely than Democrats or Republicans to be deterred from voting by claims of electoral unfairness.

Thus, Norris concludes, Trump's claims that the election is rigged will likely "encourage strong Republicans and potential independent supporters to stay home on November 8th." By alleging electoral fraud, "All that Trump is doing is shooting himself in the foot." It wouldn't be the first time.

NEXT: Mike Rowe Wears Trump's Robe, Fights a Drone, and Solves the Labor Shortage

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ron good article as usual. Though only will nitpick the headline as you wrote “Trump’s ‘Rigged Election’ Talk May Backfire”….as i don’t think it will matter in backfiring because he wasn’t likely to win anyway in my opinion.

    1. Of course the election is not rigged. Unless the results are close and rigging is needed.

      For libertarians, the default should be to assume the election is rigged. Why? Because we don’t trust the State. The State lies. Is it easy to conifrm the vote counts for yourself or to see if your vote was properly counted? Nope. And why not? We can do online financial transactions, but we can’t verify vote counts? Why not make the election completely transparent?

      1. If one person votes illegally based on a conspiracy, then the elections have been rigged.

        The question is then how rigged are they? Is there enough illegal voting activity to alter elections? I don’t think so. Maybe some local elections but those small time elections are not going to get the money necessary to pull off a coup via illegal voting.

        The bigger issue is, if we as Americans cannot have fair elections then what is the point of having a Democracy?

        1. “what is the point of having a Democracy?”

          Or a Republic for that matter?

          1. My Co-Worker’s step-sister made $14500 the previous week. She gets paid on the laptop and moved in a $557000 condo. All she did was get blessed and apply the guide leaked on this web site. Go to this web site and click tech tab to start your work.. Go now… http://www.ImdbCash.TK

          2. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 6-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $90 per hour.
            I work through this web site.. Go to tech tab start your work… http://www.Trends88.Com

        2. A lot of swing states have come down to several thousand or even several hundred votes recently. One can surely imagine that illegal votes could have indeed made a difference.

          Al Franken surely would not have won his last election were it not for illegal voting. And there is some evidence that fraud in 2012 may have swung a couple of states in Obama’s favor.

          Fact is we don’t know for sure because the authorities simply refuse to investigate in any serious manner. Independent voter integrity groups can only go so far by providing the anecdotal evidence and reasonable suspicion to begin comprehensive official investigations, but the government (i.e. progressives within the government) have no interest in taking it any further.

          And why would they want to jeopardize their plausible deniability? Their entire argument rests on it. They’d rather hand-wave any independently obtained evidence as ‘isolated incidents’ or hoaxes and claim that vote fraud ‘never happens’. So why would they embark on an investigation that could very well undermine all that? They already have the perfect scam, and the media plays right along. Why fuck it up?

          One would think that if the elections truly were as clean as the Democrats claim, they’d be eager to launch a comprehensive investigation to prove themselves right and put the issue to bed once and for all. Curious that they’re not, no?

    2. It still arguably could matter in terms of backfiring, even if Trump himself was going to lose anyway, if it keeps enough Republican voters from bothering to vote to affect senate and house races.

      1. Someone please point out to Bailey that there are a dozen or two ‘strategies’ that could ‘possibly backfire’ for EITHER candidate?

        Thanks.

        I’m just getting annoyed that Reason seems to find more fault with Trump than they do with Hillary.
        I think EACH has fatal flaws that bode ill for all of us if ‘they’ are elected!

        That said, I still lean toward Trump because I’m more strongly anti-liar and anti-socialist than anti-economic stupidity, which both demonstrate about equal measures.

        1. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,

          go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,, http://www.highpay90.com

    3. This doesn’t prove anything. But it sure looks like evidence.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ek2rXxFEzWI

  2. Trumpkins don’t actually believe the election is rigged. They just say it is an an excuse not to vote because they know they are going to lose. Some will also use it as an excuse to act out some violent fantasy. But these will be easily quashed.

    1. “””””Some will also use it as an excuse to act out some violent fantasy.”””‘

      You mean like that 69 year old women on a oxygen tank who faked getting punched in the nose?

      Oh, wait, that was a Clinton/Obama agent.

      1. I think he means bombing brown people until they love Democracy.

  3. So, Bailey is the first Reason writer to mention the O’keefe videos?

    1. But he only talks about it too shoot it down.

      O’keefe used the evil tool of editing. Though of course everything you see or hear or read in the news has been edited, even Reason Magazine but some editing is good editing while others are evil editing.

      1. The fact that the video is edited is particularly relevant given that it is from O’Keefe who has a history of misleadingly editing these types of videos. O’Keefe should release the raw footage to prove that he hasn’t done this and to dispel doubt based on that.

        1. I’ve watched the videos, and there isn’t any context in my mind that can rehabilitate the statements made in them. It seems to be an assertion that is based on his past history, not these particular videos. YMMV.

          Also, O’Keefe is tainted, forever. No amount of additional footage will change that.

          1. It’s not necessarily that the full context will exonerate Foval, but that it might weaken some of the stronger claims made based on the video. But I think that goes back to my point – if there’s no context where the statements can be rehabilitated at all, then there’s no reason for O’Keefe to not release the raw footage and refute the doubters.

            1. Actually, there’s a very good reason for that. Because O’Keefe plans to continue releasing material up until the election to continue hurting the Clinton campaign. He’s not interested in giving any media outlets (only one of whom endorsed Trump) the information the Clinton campaign needs to get ahead of the story.

              And, as O’Keefe pointed out, the claim that the stories don’t matter without the raw footage is bullshit. No other media outlets are held to that standard on stories they report. The mainstream press is no less biased than O’Keefe, with a much longer history of fabrication and lies in this election than O’Keefe has. And, as you pointed out, these people talked at length…there’s no context in which these statements can be rehabilitated. And if there’s a lot more to come, then it’s foolish to trust the pro-Clinton media with the raw footage.

              O’Keefe may be partisan, but at least he’s not pretending to be something he’s not like the rest of the press.

          2. Calidissident thinks that maybe trump was pointing a gun at their heads when they admitted to inciting violence. He might be right. You’ll never know for sure until O’Keefe releases the unedited videos, and even then you can’t be 100% certain that they didn’t edit out trump raping them into making those statements.

            1. I’m not saying they were edited to that extent. Or even that they were deceptively edited. Maybe they weren’t. But you can still have a scenario where the people interviewed admit to nefarious things, and still have the video be edited to make the situation look worse than it is – for example, you could edit out the part where you ask “So the DNC/Clinton campaign ordered you to do X?” and they reply “No, we come up with that all on our own” which takes away from the point you’re trying to prove (I’m not saying that actually happened – I’m giving a hypothetical example of how you could misleadingly edit this sort of video). Given his history, O’Keefe doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt that he didn’t misleadingly edit (is this really a controversial statement?), so the question then becomes how misleading is it? For about the 1000th time, I agree that there’s no context where the people on video don’t look bad, but the full extent of involvement of various parties is not as clear, and there’s no reason for O’Keefe to not release the raw footage if it supports those accusations as much as the edited version does.

              1. Given his history, O’Keefe doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt…

                Really? What about the Trump/Billy Bush tape? Do you actually think those are believable based on NBC’s history? Where is the “unedited” footage?

        2. PHAKE SKANKDULL!!!!!

          Did you hear that O’Keefe was caught by a prominent Reason journalist pretending to be somebody he wasn’t?! Wake up sheeple!

          1. Chill out that’s not what I said. My point is that when a guy who has a history of editing videos just like this in a misleading fashion releases this sort of video, there are going to be some doubts and caution about whether or not he did that in this case. That doesn’t mean there’s no story, but it means that it’s fair to call on him to release the full unedited video and to be cautious about what might have been left out and whether or not it weakens any of the arguments O’Keefe, Trump, etc. are making based on it.

            1. You’ve been asserting without evidence the exact same thing in every single thread where the video has been mentioned even tangentially. Ad hominem doesn’t become any less a fallacy because you really, really liked ACORN and Planned Parenthood.

              1. Pat:
                It’s not an ad hominem and it’s not an assertion anything without evidence. It’s a prudent withholding of judgement based on past history of this person being misleading at best. I know the Trumpers and right wingers really want it to be true, and who knows it might be, but you are factually wrong in every part of your comment. Including the idiotic aside about how much someone likes or dislikes Planned Parenthood or ACORN.

      2. It’s not editing, it’s the fact that the video is all highly sophisticated computer animation, obviously funded by the Kremlin and produced by the secret Pixarski laboratory in Magnitogorsk.

        What you saw with your own eyes and heard with your own ears did not happen.

        /Hillarybot

        1. O’Keefe was with the Russians too?

          1. Didn’t you know? Everyone against Hillary is a Russian operative or involved in some hacking conspiracy.

            But anti-Hillary people are crazy to suggest any illegal conspiracies are taking place.

            1. It’s not a conspiracy theory to cite the US intelligence consensus that Russia hacked the DNC.

              It IS a conspiracy theory to believe the the Democrats are committing widespread voter fraud. I mean, why would they even need to try to do it? Their candidate looks to win in a landslide. So why break who knows how many laws? At who knows what expense? At incredible risk if they were to get caught, to achieve a goal that seems inevitable anyway?

              1. “It’s not a conspiracy theory to cite the US intelligence consensus that Russia hacked the DNC.”

                Really now?

                Would this be the same US intelligence community that told us about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction?

                I seem to recall a decade ago that the US intelligence community was accused of coloring its reports to meet the political desires of the administration in office. Of course that could not possibly be happening again now, could it?

              2. “Bandito Blanco|10.21.16 @ 9:39PM|#

                It’s not a conspiracy theory to cite the US intelligence consensus that Russia hacked the DNC.”

                Consensus- Like the man made global warming consensus. Way to undercut your own argument, Shmucky.

                1. Jury:

                  If you don’t accept man made climate change there is no reaching you.

              3. So Hillary’s win over Bernie was completely honest, in contrast to everything she has done over the past several decades?

              4. Found the HillShill

      3. some editing is good editing while others are evil editing

        This is true.

        Lots of people here rightly criticize the Daily Show for their deceptive editing of interviews. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to apply the same kind of scrutiny to O’Keefe’s videos. If we are to believe that the videos accurately portray what’s going on, let’s hear everything that the subjects actually said.

      4. DJF: I guess you thought Katie Couric was all good with her gun control “documentary” with its bullshit editing? O’Keefe has a credibility issue he created by being caught editing video to misrepresent the truth. He damaged his own reputation and therefore should be taken with a grain of salt until he proves otherwise. I don’t trust O’Keefe or Couric for the record.

    2. See, our incessant comment activism finally got the Kochness monster to relent and grant permission to mention O’Keefe. Never give up, never surrender!

      Now, let me read the article and see what I can nitpick Bailey about.

      1. Comment activism – even better than facebook activism! Keyboard warriors triumph! (Ride of the Valkyries plays in the background.)

    3. The thing that stuck me watching the video was how expensive the methods were that Foval was describing. To be specific: fake pay stubs with fake addresses for each voter were required. That is a lot of work to go to for one vote, especially if that vote has to drive itself from Wisconsin to Iowa, as in the example given in the video. I don’t doubt that there is voting fraud, and maybe in large numbers, but I wouldn’t expect that the method described in the video would be the first choice of those who do it, unless money is no object.

      The only way you are going to catch vote fraud under current requirements for IDs (which are essentially no requirement), is to compare exit polls with vote outcomes. That will only give you probabilistic evidence.

      Having proof of citizenship via a passport or national ID card is the only way to really enforce voting laws, especially if states or cities in Blue regions are willing to offer identification to non-residents.

  4. *Reads Ron’s first sentence, gets the vapors, faints dead away*

  5. As for all the “election could never be rigged” talk I leave a quote from Scott Adams who I think explained it quite well.

    “If you want a reason to be worried, ask yourself why the mainstream media is so keen on framing the election as “not rigged.” The message I’m getting from them, collectively, is that they think it will be. (Because it will be.) We just don’t know how much the rigging will matter.

    Why do I say it will be rigged?

    Because whenever humans have motive, opportunity, a high upside gain, and low odds of detection, shenanigans happen 100% of the time. Our vote-counting systems have plenty of weak spots. Rigging (to some degree) is a near guarantee.

    And keep in mind that Team Clinton has framed Trump as the next Hitler. That gives every citizen moral cover to do outrageous things to stop him. The stakes are sky-high. In this environment, it would truly be a miracle to have an unrigged election. But again, we don’t know how much rigging there will be. It might not be enough to matter.”

    1. “If you want a reason to be worried, ask yourself why the mainstream media is so keen on framing the election as ‘not rigged.’ The message I’m getting from them, collectively, is that they think it will be.”

      I don’t that follows logically. It could be used to essentially defend any false claim that gets attention, and doesn’t actually provide evidence of the assertion. Another reason could be that rigged elections in democratic states can lead to societal chao and turmoil, and thus it’s important to dispel false accusations of rigging. More cynically, and more accurately in my opinion, the media dispelling a rigged narrative reduces challenges to Clinton’s legitimacy – but that doesn’t mean the election actually is rigged, just that the media doesn’t want their preferred candidate to be tarnished by those accusations.

      1. The problem is that the media has done nothing to dispel the claim except deny it. Repeating government press releases doesn’t constitute proof. Regardless of his editing, O’Keefe is at least doing what the media should be: going out and investigating what is actually happening.

        1. That’s true. But it’s also hard to disprove something like this. The whole point of the theory is that there’s a secret operation to rig the election that doesn’t get discovered. There are always going to be people that believe that, and you can’t disprove it past a certain point. I think Bailey’s point that this operation would require the participation of thousands, if not millions, of people to affect the outcome of a national election and there isn’t more proof of it makes it suspect. Similar to a lot of the 9/11 conspiracies that required the cooperation of massive numbers of people without any leaks.

          1. Actually I think a handful of people in a couple of swing states could flip an election. If those states are tight enough.

            1. In pretty much any election other than 2000, you’re still talking about tens, are more likely hundreds, of thousands of people. For example, Obama’s margin in the 4 closest states he won and which prevented Romney from getting 270, was a combined 500,000 votes. It’s also not totally clear beforehand exactly which states need to won via this method and which you can already count on without fraud. So there would likely be fraud beyond the states that, in hindsight, were the bare-bones minimum to win.

              Also, if this strategy was employed consistently, you would expect there to be times where the winner won the electoral college while losing the popular vote by a good-sized margin. The winner has only lost the popular vote once at all since the 1880’s. Also, you would see a consistent pattern of unexpectedly (based on polling) winning these states.

              1. Considering a lot of voter fraud has happened in the past, the media’s blithe dismissal of it ever occur is a bit suspect (I do think it is rather that they are boosting their preferred candidate, not trying to cover anything up). Voter fraud rarely happens on such a large scale as to affect the outcome of the elections, for the reasons you mentioned, but there are some suspicious cases, such as the 1960 presidential election.

            2. This election is going to be a landslide for Trump and the Democrats know it. The big liberal cities will not matter. Its the blue collar workers who used to vote Democrat in suburban areas that are going to give Trump states that typically go to Democrats. Trump will get NY State and that should tell you everything you need to know.

              Voter fraud concerns me but I know it takes tens/hundreds of thousands of conspirators to pull off a coup via vote rigging. Its pretty hard to keep conspiracies that big under wraps.

              1. lc1789,

                Are you willing to make a bet on that? I’ll make a $50 and give you 4:1 odds that Trump either loses the popular vote or wins by less than 5% (which is a very small and generous threshold for a landslide).

                1. *$50 bet

            3. This election is going to be a landslide for Trump and the Democrats know it. The big liberal cities will not matter. Its the blue collar workers who used to vote Democrat in suburban areas that are going to give Trump states that typically go to Democrats. Trump will get NY State and that should tell you everything you need to know.

              Voter fraud concerns me but I know it takes tens/hundreds of thousands of conspirators to pull off a coup via vote rigging. Its pretty hard to keep conspiracies that big under wraps.

              1. Trump will get NY State and that should tell you everything you need to know.

                This has to be trolling.

          2. It is hard but certainly not impossible.

            And participation is not the same thing as coordination. Each precinct only has to worry about a handful of people. And they’re likely focused more on the local elections than the national ones anyway. It’s quite possible that one party’s corruption “cancels out” the other party’s corruption on the state and moreso national levels, except in the most tightly contested elections.

            But elections are supposed to represent the perspectives of the eligible voters, equally weighted. Even if the final outcomes didn’t change, and of course most of them probably wouldn’t above the local level, the proportion of the votes, and thus the sense of legitimacy the elected candidate has, would. The result of an election is more than just the winner.

            1. It is hard but certainly not impossible.

              It = investigating and proving/disproving the existence of widespread voter/electoral fraud

            2. In most of the schemes being discussed, the participating voter is aware of what’s going on, and thus they need to be coordinated into the scheme and must be quiet about it.

              1. I think you’re assuming that tens of thousands of fraudulent votes = tens of thousands of willing participants. One person could canvas a dozen polling places pretty easily. You’d just need a list of tens of thousands of names (dead/infirm, moved away, never voted before, etc.) and a small number of people.

                And that’s not even getting into the possibility that electoral officials could be tampering with the records themselves, which is another fairly small group of people.

                1. That’s true, but you’re still talking about a lot of people in order to flip a presidential election. If even one of those people in any year is an undercover member of the other party, the entire operation can be exposed with plenty of evidence. Not to mention other ways it could be discovered.

                  The electoral officials thing is true, but different from most of the theories be propagated. And that could easily go one way or another.

                  1. You could also point out that the standard practice is for election precincts to have election judges from both major parties be present, so any vote fraud schemes that are dependent on manipulating the votes or results at the precinct level will require the cooperation of at least dozens, if not a hundred or more, of individuals who are members of the other political party, to affect the vote in just one state.

                    1. These schemes fail every on level of analysis on plausibility. However if those screaming, “rigged elections!” were given to deep thinking on issues, they wouldn’t be Trump supporters.

                    2. John Kerry said he just needed 50,000 more in Ohio to have won in 2004. Only dipshits would summarily dismiss vote rigging especially on a local level when counts can be extremely close. Look at JFK in 1960, bandito pendejo. Look who has a stake in election computers.

      2. “I don’t that follows logically.”

        Preemptively defending yourself against charges that your desired outcome is a farce, in order to attempt to legitimize the result, isn’t logical?

        Come on man.

        1. No, it doesn’t logically follow that because the media spends time arguing that the election isn’t rigged, that they must really think it is rigged. That is the logical claim Adams and the poster who quoted him are making, and I’m saying that there’s a leap in logic there.

          Also, I just realized that the word “think” is missing in that sentence of mine. My apologies (why do we not have an edit button yet)?

          1. You are technically correct in that there is a logical leap in Adams’s argument. The issue is that the logical leap that most of the media wants people to make — we are saying there is no fraud because the government is saying there is no fraud, therefore there is no fraud — is greater in magnitude. Pundits and reporters spend far more time talking about how it doesn’t exist than they ever do finding out whether or not it does.

            1. Yeah, it’s fair to point out that the media could do a better job of disproving it. I was just pointing out the flaw in Adams’s line of reasoning. Also, I think the burden of proof is ultimately on the people making the claim that the election is rigged. As I said above, there’s only so much you can do to disprove a claim like that.

              1. No, the burden of proof falls on the people who say that they’ve done their jobs honestly. They need to be more transparent. And the constant obstruction of the tools that enable transparency needs to stop.

                The government says the election was done right. Yet there is evidence of blatant incompetence and malfeasance in every other arm of government. It is a greater mental leap, a la Occam’s Razor, to believe that the electoral process is the one aspect of government untained by human nature, than to believe it is just as bad as any other thing the government does.

                Elections have massive consequences for the people in government, even those who aren’t elected. The reward for manipulating them is huge, and the risk is low as long as the media will carry water.

                None of this proves it is happening. But “we’re not corrupt” should never be accepted as disproof of corruption.

                1. As you and Zeb discuss below, “fraud” and “rigged” aren’t the same thing. I think you’re right about the former, but if we are talking about accusations of the latter, at some point you have to put up substantial evidence of this mass conspiracy instead of just accusing your opponents of not having sufficiently disproved it. I agree there probably hasn’t been a large-scale election without some level of fraud. But to predetermine the outcome of a presidential election requires a huge amount of fraud across several states at a minimum, and that needs evidence to be supported.

                  1. But to predetermine the outcome of a presidential election requires a huge amount of fraud across several states at a minimum, and that needs evidence to be supported.

                    I don’t think the outcome is predetermined. Let’s say two people are playing a skill-based game and the first person to get 100 points wins. Right now, the outcome is unknown and unfixed but could be said to favor the player with greater skill.

                    Now let’s suppose Player A has a handicap of +20 points. The outcome is still unknown and unfixed but if both players are of comparable skill, then Player A is more likely to win.

                    Similarly, if turnout for both candidates is fairly comparable, which would hardly be surprising in our closely contested elections, but one candidate gains more votes from fraud than the other one does, the outcome is swayed towards that candidate. The other candidate still could have won, if more people turned out to vote for him/her than the imbalance of fraudulent votes awarded to the opponent.

                    1. That’s a fair point, but a lot of people are arguing that it is predetermined. And the point remains that in almost every (presidential) election, these operations would have to be huge to have any significant chance of making an impact. Maybe you get lucky and it’s 2000 and a (somewhat, it was still several hundred votes) small number of votes in one state is all that’s needed to win the presidency. But that’s a very atypical result. I agree that it’s more likely to impact local races.

                    2. I think both sides are overplaying their hands because it’s really about seeing their candidate win moreso than ensuring the integrity of the electoral process.

                      If Trump benefited more from fraud than Clinton did, and it were made public after he took office, no doubt a lot of his supporters would write it off even though they complained about “rigging” before the election happened.

                      And of course, if Clinton won and a similar revelation were to come out that she benefited from fraud, no doubt some of her supporters would be concerned about it even though they wrote it off as nonexistent before it happened.

                      Such is life…

            2. Well, there is certainly some amount of fraud.

              I’m not sure that makes the election “rigged”. “Rigged” to me implies that the outcome is certain. I’m sure there has never been an election without some voter fraud.

              1. Yeah, I’m not getting into the “meaning of the word ‘rigged'” sideshow. I haven’t used the word “rigged” and that’s on purpose. There is fraud. Sometimes the fraud might be so great as to constitute rigging, in your definition, but in most cases probably not. That doesn’t mean the outcomes (who gets elected, how many votes they appear to have gotten) aren’t affected.

                1. How about the DNC RIGGING Sanders’ candidacy with the DNC vote set upand other shenanigans. Debbie Blabbermouth Schultz resigned over it. Look what O’keefe had to go through to get what video he did. Inciting violence at Trump rallies to sway public opinion is not rigging?

          2. “No, it doesn’t logically follow that because the media spends time arguing that the election isn’t rigged, that they must really think it is rigged. ”

            I respectfully disagree.

            “and I’m saying that there’s a leap in logic there.”

            And again. for the reasons I stated, I respectfully disagree.

            1. “Preemptively defending yourself against charges that your desired outcome is a farce, in order to attempt to legitimize the result, isn’t logical?”

              That is what the media is doing in my mind.

              Explain why it’s not logical, please.

            2. “And again. for the reasons I stated, I respectfully disagree.”

              You haven’t really explained why it logically follows that because they argue their desired outcome isn’t a farce, that they must therefore think it is a farce.

              Your statement is logical if we assume that the result is a farce. But that’s begging the question. If we do not start with that assumption, there are logical reasons why the media would argue the election isn’t rigged other than they believe it is rigged. It’s not like they brought it up out of nowhere, Trump and other people on the right have been arguing that it’s rigged the last few weeks.

              1. Even if we separate the notion that the media is in the tank for particular candidates/causes (which is itself well establishment but besides the point), they do have a very strong incentive to claim elections aren’t rigged: access. It is the same problem that arises in media reporting on the government everywhere else. If they badmouth the officials, then they don’t get the juicy stories, the inside scoops, etc. No more “anonymous officials say…”, etc.

                1. I’m not arguing that the media would have no incentive to argue the election isn’t rigged even if it were (though it depends on how we define “the media” – there are still some media players that aren’t partisan Democratic hacks even if they’re the minority). I’m saying that just because that incentive would exist in a world where the elections were rigged doesn’t prove that elections actually are rigged, or that the media thinks they’re rigged. That’s all I’m saying.

                  1. Agreed, I was merely establishing a reason why the media would say it isn’t rife with fraud even though they knew it to be.

  6. So Readon has been suppressing the Libertarian vote with its coverage of the debate commission controversy?

    1. Somewhat, probably. But there’s a pretty important difference between that, which talks about how the process is set up to ensure that the two major party candidates get the most exposure and the maximum likelihood of getting the vast majority of votes, and accusations that the vote itself will be miscounted and rigged. In the former scenario, your vote still counts and can be used to send a message to the duopoly. In the latter, your vote doesn’t matter and there’s no assurance it will even be counted (or not offset by fake votes). Also, Johnson’s chances of winning the election have always been much lower than Trump’s. Suppressing third party vote through a pessimistic narrative might drop you from 6% to 5%. A major party drop of a few percentage points could be the difference between winning and losing.

  7. Given that Trump can’t get out of his own way, he would have a hard time articulating the real issue, not that the election is rigged in the sense of voter fraud, but the the primary and campaign process has been skewed and skewed hard by media bias and collusion. That’s what the wikileaks emails and the O’Keefe videos prove, not the sort of ballot stuffing and in-person fraud that does happen but probably not at a rate that can significantly sway a national election. Instead of hammering on a valid point that was a winner for him before (MSM sucks) he just sounds like a paranoid loon again.

    1. The interesting thing to me is that a lot of the fraud seems to happen in districts that were never contested to begin with. Cleveland was never going to vote for a Republican for President, yet they had over 100% turnout. What that tells me is that local elections are being fraudulently won, not so much national ones. Although, there is fraud in “battleground” districts too.

      1. I imagine that works more like a target of opportunity than anything else. No Republicans or any sort of Non-Democrats are in a polling place that is going to be a landslide for a Democrat, so why not get up to some sort of idiocy? Obviously, it shouldn’t happen, but it’s not really proof that there is a wide-spread coordinated campaign.

        Trump ignores a very valid complaint in order to go the Alex Jones path again.

        1. I don’t think there’s much coordination above the local level. There doesn’t have to be, really. Our national elections are mostly too competitive to realistically claim they’ve been “rigged” the way Zeb defines the word above. That’s Zimbabwe/Venezuela-level shit and while certainly not impossible, generally ain’t happening in the good ole’ U.S. of A at the national level.

          But enough local, uncoordinated corruption can still converge to a nationally significant phenomenon.

      2. Because the votes cast in Cleveland get counted with everyone else’s in Ohio. Then whoever gets the most “votes” wins all the EC votes for the state.

        1. True enough, but fraud can happen in any precinct. So one major urban area adds a lot of fraudulent votes one way. Then a bunch of rural areas each contribute a small number fraudulent votes that add up to a lot going the other way. I’m assuming both parties engage in this bullshit, although I would hardly be surprised if one party was much better at it.

          1. Agreed on all points.

    2. ..primary and campaign process has been skewed and skewed hard by media bias and collusion..

      Good point. This needs to be reiterated at every opportunity.

      1. Yeah, Trump’s talking about the entire process, not just hijacking some voting machines or the like. As usual though he didn’t articulate it very well.

  8. If Trump is suppressing his voters, Democrats will line up to bus them the polls, no?

  9. Another three or four precious campaign days wasted on this “rigged” nonsense. I must say that Clinton’s campaign manager, Donald Trump, is doing a great job deflecting attention from her failures.

  10. And yet places like North Korea routinely get 99% turnout. Why is THAT, hmm?

    1. The voting booth is right next to the chain-smoking chimp?

  11. Norris points out that India provides every one of its citizens with an ID card; surely, she says, a much richer and technologically developed United States could do the same thing

    I would just like to point out that every single state in the Union requires all adults to have valid photographic identification, whether they be drivers or not; and that with the Real ID act, it is effectively a national ID card. If someone who is eligible to vote in the US does not possess a state issued ID, federal ID like an armed forces ID card, or passport, they are technically in violation of the law. We can SLD whether that should be a rule or not, but the proposition that requiring identification to vote places a unique burden on anyone is the biggest distraction in this discussion.

    1. every single state in the Union requires all adults to have valid photographic identification, whether they be drivers or not

      Wait, what? Since when is this true?

      1. I can’t say I’ve done exhaustive research, but I’m pretty sure that isn’t true. Practically a photo ID is pretty necessary, but I’ve never heard of it being a legal requirement for all adults.

        1. All adults age 18 and up. You have to be able to provide valid proof of your identity if stopped by an officer of the law. The only way to do that is have a valid ID issued by a government.

          1. I’ve never heard of this either. Link?

          2. That is not true. You have to provide your identity to a police officer on demand. That requirement is satisfied by stating your name (and in some places, your address as well). You cannot be compelled to produce identifying documents under normal circumstances.

            1. I’m wrong. All adults are required to be able to identify themselves. How that could be possible without papers, I’m at a loss for, but the wording is pretty clear that there is no requirement for state issued ID papers to comply with that.

              1. If you can be punished for not answering, you can be punished for lying. The requirement doesn’t state proof of identity, only identity.

              2. I can identify myself quite easily by saying my name.

          3. As others say, you have to provide valid proof. You just have to identify yourself truthfully (which is also bullshit, but actually is the law).

            I actually make a special point not to carry my ID if I go out and am not driving or planning to buy alcohol or do anything else that might make it useful or necessary.

        2. I don’t think people should be compelled to possess identifying documents as a general rule. Besides the fact that it recalls all sorts of historical (and some extant) authoritarian states, it criminalizes the general liberty of free people to go about their ordinary and lawful business unhindered.

          But voting is not an everyday activity. It is not something that needs to be “as easy as possible”. It is a right of citizenship but one that carries responsibilities as well. You have time to prepare for it. Saying you should need to register, keep your registration up-to-date, and obtain/present identification at the polling place is not especially onerous nor akin to criminalizing a lack of having the right papers.

          1. It is not something that needs to be “as easy as possible”

            +1 poll tax

            1. Or the literacy test. But the bigger problem with both of those was always that people could be exempted from them.

              A poll tax that everybody had to pay, a literacy test that everybody had to take; these are hurdles that can be overcome. The racially disparate impact can be eliminated in, at most, a few generations (with certain other assumptions about matters outside of voting).

              But if the actual situation is that the tax or the test is meant to be too onerous for most people to meet, and thus the only way most people get to vote is by special and selective exemption, then the tax/test is a red herring. The exceptions are what control the franchise.

              Fundamentally, to say that obtaining proof of identity is an equivalent hurdle to a poll tax or a literacy test is disingenuous. If the net effect is the same, then one must look at the other factors involved.

              1. A poll tax that everybody had to pay, a literacy test that everybody had to take; these are hurdles that can be overcome.

                The point is, why should those hurdles be there in the first place? If one accepts that participation in a vote is a fundamental right of all citizens within a republic, then why shouldn’t it be as easy as possible? It’s akin to requiring someone to pass a test in ecclesiastical Latin before exercising his or her freedom of religion. Yes, anyone can learn Latin, but why have the test in the first place?

                Fundamentally, to say that obtaining proof of identity is an equivalent hurdle to a poll tax or a literacy test is disingenuous.

                I’m not claiming that. I take issue with the argument that the exercise of a fundamental right shouldn’t be as easy as possible. I would argue that liberty is the state in which as few barriers to the exercise of those rights exist as possible. The minute you accept certain arbitrary hurdles as legitimate, it’s the slippery slope that leads to the overly onerous tax or test you describe designed to limit the franchise.

                1. What is voting?

                  It’s not a natural right. To call it a “fundamental” right begs some questions. No government = no voting. Authoritarian government = no voting. So you need to have a democratic government in order for voting to even meaningfully exist.

                  But who makes up the demos that rules? It’s usually a defining characteristic of citizenship, although not always (e.g., women couldn’t vote even though they were considered citizens for a long time). It doesn’t have to be associated with citizenship, but that opens up a larger question of “what is government?”

                  Why vote? Well, you vote so that your government can represent your interests. But other people get to vote, too. So whose interests get the most representation? The majority of equally weighted individuals, we say, thus we have a majoritarian democracy (although, not exactly).

                  But how do we enforce those premises? If I have a right to vote, do I not also have a right to have my vote counted? And weighted equally with those of my neighbors? If one of my neighbors gets to vote twice (under two different names, let’s say), does that not diminish my right?

                  I suppose you could say there is a conflict between making voting as easy as possible and making it as honest as possible. I want an honest election at least as much as an easy election.

                  1. *takes off Judge Napalitano hat*

                2. The minute you accept certain arbitrary hurdles as legitimate, it’s the slippery slope that leads to the overly onerous tax or test you describe designed to limit the franchise.

                  First of all, I don’t think this slope is all that slippery. The poll tax has been made unconstitutional. The literacy tests have been decisively struck down by the courts, and I doubt it would be difficult to make them unconstitutional, too.

                  And voter ID isn’t “designed to limit the franchise”. The limits are already there. Voter ID is designed to enforce those limits and thus the guarantees of the franchise, such as “one man, one vote.”

              2. Looking at some historical poll tax amounts, what I said above might only be true of literacy tests. It looks like the poll tax fell equally heavily on poor whites as on poor blacks. It’s just that, initially, there were far more poor blacks proportionally than poor whites. And, no doubt, the southern gentry didn’t much want poor whites voting, either.

            2. Poll taxes and literacy or other tests are no good.

              But if people want to vote, and are capable of getting to the poll, they should have to make at least that much effort. I’m mildly against absolute voter ID requirements on principle. And I think that “vote through the mail” and similar schemes are a much bigger danger to the legitimacy of elections than not requiring ID at the polls.

              1. Absentee/mail-in voting is an interesting issue. You’re right that it opens up a lot of opportunities for fraud. But getting rid of it runs into a couple hurdles:

                1. Members of the military who are deployed overseas. Yes, it’s questionable to what extent they are “subject to the jurisdiction” of their stateside residence, but at the very least they should reasonably get to vote in the Presidential election. It would be difficult to administer the poll in person in a warzone.

                2. People who are traveling abroad for business/work but spend most of their time stateside. Early voting could address this, to some extent, but that also has some problems.

                1. You do need to make some accommodation for people in those situations. But it seems like there has been a big push in recent years to allow or make it easier for more people to vote in unconventional ways. Which seems like by far the easiest way to vote fraudulently. I got an absentee ballot once in college. I could have been anybody asking for it.

  12. I think it’s important to remember that different people mean different things when they’re talking about the election being rigged. Here are a few things people might be talking about.

    1) DNC operatives instigate violence at Trump events and fake being victims of violence at the hands of Trump supporters.

    2) Media bias.

    3) Voter ID laws shot down to let the nation’s 11 million illegal aliens vote against Trump.

    4) Gerrymandering

    5) Keeping Johnson and Stein out of the debates

    6) James Comey unnecessarily gives Hillary’s email toadies immunity and then destroys their laptops.

    Those are just off the top of my head.

    Stuffing the ballot box may not be as common as people imagine, but historical references are memorable–from “border ruffians” in Missouri interfering in Kansas’ vote on slavery to every election Tammany
    Hall ever participated in.

    7) I’m looking at a choice between two Democrats for Senator in California–you think it’s bad that Johnson can’t get in the debates? In California, they won’t even let us have a Republican on the ballot!

    Look at it yourself:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ United_States_Senate_election_in_California,_2016

    . . . now tell me the elections aren’t rigged.

    1. For that matter, limiting choices to only one of each D and R on a ballot is a kind of rigging too.

      There has probably never been an election not rigged in one of these ways or another.

      1. Having only one nomination from each qualifying party may be limiting, but refusing to let other parties put anyone on the ballot is far more restrictive than that. It isn’t even comparable.

        The difference between multiparty democracy and a single party state is ballot access by more than one party.

        Giving us a choice between a Democrat or a Democrat–and no other options on the ballot at all–is making a mockery of democracy itself. The Soviet Union used to hold elections like that.

        That’s what made them a single party state.

        1. To be fair, California was already a single-party state long before they chose to make it official.

          1. Before, there was always the opportunity to change course in the future.

            And it isn’t just affecting California. They’ve basically guaranteed that the Democrats will get an extra seat in the U.S. Senate in perpetuity.

            1. They still have the opportunity to vote for Republicans in the primary.

              1. Not as much as we did before and not as often.

                Having more options means having more options on the election ballot.

        2. Except Republicans and anyone else can still run in CA. I’m sure there must be congressional districts with 2 republicans on the ballot.

          I’m not saying that I think that the open primary thing is great. But I see the appeal of the idea. Why should political parties always be on the ballot, even if the two most popular candidates are from the same party? Why should parties be given a guaranteed spot on the ballot anyway? If I were king of the world, no party affiliation would be allowed to be mentioned on any official ballots.

          Practically, I think you are probably right. Particularly in a state like CA that leans heavily toward one party.

          Maybe it would work better if the top 3 or 4 candidates got on the ballot for the general election.

          1. “I’m not saying that I think that the open primary thing is great.”

            I don’t like open primaries, but this isn’t about open primaries.

            It’s about them refusing to let party nominees on the election ballot.

    2. Do you really think 11 million illegal aliens are all voting against Trump because of voter ID laws being shot down (also, I find it funny how each side thinks the presence or absence of such laws rigs the election one way or the other)?

      Turnout analysis from many different sources showing that turnout rates for eligible Hispanic voters (and Asian voters for that matter, as I believe they’re the second biggest major racial/ethnic group in the illegal immigrant population) is low, about 20 points lower than for black and white voters. If illegal Hispanic immigrants really are voting in mass, then that means those turnout rates for eligible Hispanics are a lot lower than those already low numbers. That doesn’t seem likely.

      Also, I think our open primary system is stupid, but the end result is due to the state’s voting preferences. It’s not likely the Republicans mounted significant challenges to Boxer and Feinsteinn under the old system.

      1. “Do you really think 11 million illegal aliens are all voting against Trump because of voter ID laws”

        Yes, that’s exactly what I said. Either that or I said it was an example of what some people might be talking about when they say the elections are rigged.

        Did you really mean to say that the Democrats’ support for illegal aliens and amnesty has nothing whatsoever to do with how amnesty would favorably impact them in elections?

        Oh wait, you didn’t say that–so why would I pretend like you did?

        1. You said voter ID laws were shot down to let 11 million illegal aliens vote against Trump – how does that not imply that there are 11 million illegal aliens voting against Trump?

          I don’t think your point in the second paragraph supports your argument – if illegal aliens can already vote, there’s no need to support amnesty so they can vote.

          1. You’re the most willfully obtuse person I’ve met since Tulpa.

            “I think it’s important to remember that different people mean different things when they’re talking about the election being rigged. Here are a few things people might be talking about.”

            Different people, different things, here are a few things people might be talking about:

            1)

            2)

            3)

            . . .

            If you can’t figure it out, then your world is full of things like that.

  13. Okay, you’ve got video PROVING that the Democrats are rigged the election and from this you conclude that there’s nothing serious going on?

    Where’d you get your degree? Clown college?

    You’re a disgrace.

    1. He didn’t say that.

      He said the talk is likely to backfire.

      Personally, I don’t read it that way.

      I think Trump supporters are more likely to walk five miles through a blizzard and Hillary voters are more likely to stop for pizza on the way home from work rather than vote.

      Low voter turnout should benefit Trump.

  14. The near-entirety of the media plus the weight of the executive branch of the federal government actively pulling for one side may not technically be “rigging”, but it’s in that area.

  15. The issue is whether or not elections are being rigged, not whether or not independent voters are comfortable with that assessment. All voters should have the truth: if they don’t know the truth, how are they going to make the right choice?

    THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS ARE TRUE:
    1. The DNC rigged the election of Hillary over Bernie in the primary.
    2. Although the public wants objective, accurate information; there are strong ties with major networks (CNN), newspapers (the New York Times), and corporations (Google). They blare headlines unfavorable to Trump, and refuse to mention anything unfavorable to Hillary.
    3. We have debate moderators (not Chris Wallace), openly siding with Hillary (refusing to ask her tough questions or challenge the veracity of her statements, leaking debate questions to her, and even offering Hillary helpful advice), while openly siding against Trump.
    4. The justice department was rigged, and allowed Hillary to get away with have a private server for government business in order to disguise the pay-for-play schemes of the Clinton foundation. Bill Clinton met privately with Loretta Lynch to talk about “their grandchildren,” and the FBI accepted Hillary lies to Congress and the FBI.
    We have these truths before us even before discussing voter fraud, which is a big problem.

    1. Absolutely right on all points. The first 2 debates showed how biased the media is against Trump…and in the past, against all Republican candidates. But they reserve a special hatred for Trump. I’ve never witnessed anything this overt before. The media and newspapers want to tell the public how to think and they get very upset at folks who think for themselves.

  16. Belief in electoral fraud depresses turnout except among illegals, and the dead, who turn out in droves.

  17. Why hasn’t reason followed up with the caught on tape admissions of voter fraud????

  18. Getting “Rigged”–isn’t that what happens to Roger Murtagh (Danny Glover) in Lethal Weapon?

  19. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  20. Mr. Bailey, with all due respect. I think you are wrong about this.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

    When Mrs. Clinton receives her coronation she will be viewed by a large segment of the population as illegitimate.
    This is not about hanging chads in Florida.
    This is about media collusion, and the shutting down of Julian Assange.

    1. You are absolutely right!

  21. Bookies have laid odds The Antichoice loses from the outset. The odds improved all the way to 2 to 1 against, then got longer again and lately hover at 6 to 1 against. God’s Own Prohibitionists (and their Tea and Consta clones) in their platforms make clear that they want men with guns to force unwilling women to reproduce as JOB ONE. Job 2 is War, starting with enjoyable drugs, as pretext for the same asset-forfeiture looting that pushed he nation into the Crash and Depression, then fanning out to war on Semites and lesser agenda items. Cash money offers long odds they lose. This is because they are coercive thugs whose fanatical prohibitionist policies destroy the economy. They lose for the same reasons they lost in 1932, ’36, ’40, ’44 and 48. They only won when the National Socialism Herb Hoover propped up for Germany was assimilated in These States during the Nuremberg trials, and Tricky Dick came slipping in…

  22. I worked the polls on election day in Newark, NJ. On average, by the time the voting machines opened at 6 AM, there were 3,000 votes already cast. Voter fraud is real. In Secaucus, NJ (Hudson County), every single person living in a housing complex of over 500 residents who were mentally disturbed, VOTED by absentee ballot every election. There are hundreds of stories of very innovative ways fraud is committed every election. Fraud is alive and well living in the cities.

    1. The meme that is being put out is that, yes there is fraud, but it does not effect the elections.

      The question is, if it does not effect the election, why go to the trouble of doing the fraud?

  23. I think the elections are mostly rigged but not in the sense Trump is alluding to. It’s true that you can pull the lever and have your vote accurately tallied. The fraud all takes place before the public even sees the menu. From Citizens United and the billions of dollars pumped into the system to gerrymandering and Byzantine party rules that allow them to largely ignore the unwashed masses, the voters don’t really get to make many meaningful decisions. As George Carlin said, we have 200 channels on TV and 50 flavors of ice cream to give us the illusion of choice while all the important decisions are made in back rooms by the .1%.

    Does it not seem incredible that in a country of 300,000,000 people the best candidates for president would be spouses, children and relatives of other presidents? HilClin has had a sense of inevitability about her since Bill left the Oval Office. It feels like if you play the game, pay your dues and kiss the right asses for long enough you’ll get your turn on the Iron Throne. It feels like the $20M the Clintons have been paid in “speaking fees” over the last ten years were basically just undeclared campaign donations. HilClin has been the faithful servant of Wall Street and the military-industrial complex for most of my lifetime so I suppose the presidency is considered just compensation for her efforts on their behalf.

  24. I think America is due for course correction, probably sooner than later. I think (or maybe just hope) that HilClin is the last of a dying line of corporatist flunkies to be foisted on the American people. The next generation is far more liberal than the supposedly left wing Democratic party of our elders. It probably won’t make regular Reason readers happy but I think our country will probably move away from the right wing and extreme-right-wing parties of today towards a more European type model.

    1. Right of what, Trotsky?

  25. Obama said there was rigged elections and voter fraud in 2008. But I guess after meeting 45 times in the White House with vote rigger Bob Creamer he now thinks that such talk is wrong

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Wp09JB6Zu4

  26. Bullshit. Election fraud is common. I know more than one person on a student visa who has registered and voted. They simply don’t realize they aren’t supposed to vote. I used to live in Chicago. At one time the Democrats managed to make almost 20% of the voter turnout from fake votes. Election fraud was a big issue in 2004 and the company that makes voting machines was accused of rigging the software to help Bush. And then there is Bush v. Gore, at the Supreme court in 2000. Trump is perfectly reasonable to point out the problem and be skeptical. Most of us are skeptical already and we still vote.

  27. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  28. So, saying the truth may backfire? What difference does it make?

  29. Liliana . if you think Lawrence `s blog is incredible, I just purchased a new Honda after earning $5741 this – 4 weeks past and also 10 grand lass month . it’s by-far the most-comfortable job I have ever done . I started this four months/ago and almost immediately began to make minimum $85… p/h .

    see this……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  30. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  31. Something does not add up. If the elections are thought to be rigged, but we can’t talk about it because that would depress turnout and make the situation worse, what can be done? Ah, nothing!!! How convenient!!! I think the thing to do is tell the truth to the people whatever it is and no matter the immediate consequences because otherwise the problem cannot ever be fixed. I think it’s important for people to know and understand that their vote doesn’t count for jack squat and that “democracy” is a scam perpetrated by Crypto-Marxist Globalist ruling class scumbags who manipulate the stupid masses with the lie that they have some say in how they get plundered and screwed over.

  32. Washington Post: Could non-citizens decide the November election?

    Quote:
    More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.

    Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections. Non-citizen votes could have given Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health-care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. It is also possible that non-citizen votes were responsible for Obama’s 2008 victory in North Carolina. Obama won the state by 14,177 votes, so a turnout by 5.1 percent of North Carolina’s adult non-citizens would have provided this victory margin.

  33. When I read articles like this I am amazed people live in such a bubble because voter fraud is so rampant in las vegas, and almost everyone here knows it and even know how they do it. But, then again, when I lived in the Midwest I would have been skeptical that voter fraud was wide-spread. I hope they investigate the cities where it is so commonplace, such as vegas, chicago, detroit, and the state of California . It is pretty difficult to prove non-citizens are voting but I’d sure like someone to give it an honest look.

  34. When I read articles like this I am amazed people live in such a bubble because voter fraud is so rampant in las vegas, and almost everyone here knows it and even know how they do it. But, then again, when I lived in the Midwest I would have been skeptical that voter fraud was wide-spread. I hope they investigate the cities where it is so commonplace, such as vegas, chicago, detroit, and the state of California . It is pretty difficult to prove non-citizens are voting but I’d sure like someone to give it an honest look.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.