Posted on 09/29/2014 8:05:24 PM PDT by justiceseeker93
Vote fraud inherently denies the right to vote for legitimate voters.
It should be treated exactly the same as someone forcibly restraining people from the polling booth.
Whatever happened to CT? When I was growing up, it was a wonderful place to live! Now, I go home (near Danbury) it’s a depressing sewer.
You are saying that every election that went in 0bama’s favor was rigged? That’s simply absurd. The country voted for this turd, like it or not. You could throw precisely the same argument against Republicans over Geo W. Bush’s win.
You don’t get an automatic perch on some self-assumed pedestal of moral superiority. Only liberals do, and not when they argue with me, thank you.
She didn’t vote multiple times, she voted once in each election, but at a fake address because she didn’t live in the district she said she lived in. It’s a residency issue, not a multiple-voting issue — still fraud though.
It's hard to argue that she rigged an election -- she lived in one part of Bridgeport, CT but lied and said she lived in another part, so she could run for State Rep there. Since she was registered to vote at the fake address, her votes were technically fraudulent but unless a local (less than city-wide) election was decided by a single vote, I can't see this as rigging anything. Her fraud appears to have been about self-promotion, not about influencing the outcome of voting.
I take your point-—”mere” fraud by misrepresentation versus deliberate mucking with the vote counting (say) process.
Regardless....the deliberate shaving of morality and integrity appear to have become standard procedure in the race to demean civil society.
One would think that the whole reason for registering with a bunch of different addresses is to vote at as many addresses as possible, which means casting multiple votes. Otherwise, why bother?
Obviously, multiple voting by the same individual is a common mode of 'Rat cheating. I think you probably heard, for example, of Dem voters admitting in the last few presidential elections that they were registered and voted in more than one state.
Then you have instances of buses driving the same voters around to multiple polling places. That kind of cheating happens to be aided and abetted by early voting laws in states where it exists. I know it may be unpopular to say this, but abolishing the Clinton-era "innovation" of early voting wherever it exists will serve to improve the integrity of the election process.
She didn't register at a bunch of different addresses. She registered at only one -- it just wasn't an address she actually lived at. She did that so she could run for office in a district she didn't actually live in. There's zero indication that she had any interest in voting more than once.
I actually disagree with you. In my experience with elections, it's high volumes of voters on election day that cause chaos and allow for fraudulent voting. Election officials get overwhelmed and can't cope with the numbers, so they let people slide. Early voting reduces the flow to a more manageable level and helps officials do due diligence if there's any suggestion that person might be registered more than once.
One more point: If there are nineteen counts or charges against her, it would seem offhand that there was some repetitive pattern of fake addresses. There is nothing in the article (citing a left-leaning New Haven newspaper) to indicate that wasn't the case. Of course, you would have to go through the indictment to determine this.
As far as living outside the district she represents, I don't know if that's legal or illegal under Connecticut law. It could be just a "red herring" thrown into the article cited in order to confuse the reader as to what the real crimes charged were.
I see your point, but it would be preferable for state or local election officials to plan for the expected turnout, and to accommodate higher turnouts with more polling places on Election Day and more and better trained personnel to manage those polling places.
All voters - except for those with valid reasons who must cast absentee ballots - should be voting on the same day with the same information on the candidates at hand.
Aside from the fact that events can happen during the early voting period which can change voters' minds, there is the obvious fact that the more days the polls are open, the more time and opportunities there are for various schemes of multiple voting at multiple sites.
It might seem that way, but that's not the case. She's facing nine felony counts and ten misdemeanors. Eight of the felony charges relate to voting one time in eight separate elections that took place over three years. Again the issue is that she used a fake address, and there's no suggestion that she voted more than once or was otherwise ineligible to vote. The other felony charge relates to tampering evidence to conceal that she had committed fraud.
Another ten less serious charges relate to being registered fraudulently - again at only one address -- but they count every election as a separate count, apparently. My guess is they charged her with both felony and misdemeanor counts for what is essentially the same offense in order to give them the opportunity to force a plea deal.
If this is as minor as you claim it is, I wonder why she would even be charged in the first place, considering how so many more serious cases of voting fraud and cheating go undetected and unprosecuted around the country.
She wanted to run for State Representative in an area she didn't happen to live in. The law says you have to live in your district to run. She committed fraud in order to fake residency. It wasn't about stealing an election but it's still fraud.
If this is as minor as you claim it is, I wonder why she would even be charged in the first place, considering how so many more serious cases of voting fraud and cheating go undetected and unprosecuted around the country.
I'm not sure - you'd have to ask the prosecutors. But I'm also not sure that I agree that it's minor. Her mother is an elections official, so even while the underlying issue -- whether or not she lives in her district -- seems pretty minor, it's a big deal that a candidate for office and an elections official might conspire to corrupt the voter registration process.
OK, now it's starting to make some sense. The law says you must live in the district from which you seek election. She eyes a district she doesn't live in, probably because any Democrat in that district with a Hispanic surname is virtually a shoo-in. But she doesn't want to move into that district, probably because of the extensive poverty and crime, etc., there. So she gets a phony address in that district to superficially conform to the law, then runs there, and gets elected with close to 90% of the vote.
Now you have at least one illegal vote in the district for her: her own. But how many other friends of hers could have been part of this and done exactly the same thing, perhaps registering at multiple locations in the district, perhaps with the aid of her mother, an election official? You see, this kind of scheme can result in just about as many illegal votes for your candidate as you're capable of ginning up.
Not to mention her mother is the Democrat registrar of voters in the corrupt bastion of Bridgeport ct.
It should be treated exactly the same as someone forcibly restraining people from the polling booth.
We had a classic clear-cut instance of voter intimidation - if not exactly physical restraint - in Philadelphia in 2008 by the New Black Panthers, working for the local Democratic machine, on Election Day. A case was prepared against them by outgoing Bush Justice Dept., but went nowhere once Obama-Holder came into office. So restraining voters is apparently winked at by the present federal administration - if those doing the restraining are doing it for the "right" candidate and the "right" party.
Same illogic goes for vote fraud and cheating: if done by Democrats, especially "minority" Democrats, then according to the Obama-Holder DOJ, it never happened.
The system works! This woman was *caught*, and she only voted 18 extra times.
What district is she from? Connecticut needs to kick Dems out, especially in some small towns district. I know some district in small towns (the Bolton district with Pam Sawyer) has GOP members.
According to the posted article, she's from BRIDGEPORT.
My guess is that her district is heavily Hispanic. because she got 89% of the vote there, according to Impy's post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.