Usually 'people who don't show up to vote' are the ones 'voted'. It's another reason the FBI should seed voter roles with fake names... then when non-existent people show up as being 'voted' you've caught democrats doing fraud.
Usually ‘people who don’t show up to vote’ are the ones ‘voted’. It’s another reason the FBI should seed voter roles with fake names... then when non-existent people show up as being ‘voted’ you’ve caught democrats doing fraud.
~~~
Now that I have been elucidated to the fact that there is no way to verify a ballot belongs to a legitimate voter after the fact, and for very important reasons including voter anonymity, I think this is idea seems to me like the next best alternative to doing fraud sampling.
But I have a question: Since we know the FBI wont do it, I ask why can’t private citizens and media organizations do it? The later would be preferred, because the media can go straight to the presses when they get evidence of fraud, as well as the fact they are more likely to have some degree of protections under the first amendment from being prosecuted for fraud themselves.
Why can’t an investigative team at Fox News, or the Washington Times, or the Wall Street Journal submit a dozen or so carefully prepared voter registration applications and then monitor the polling locations for those precincts or polling locations where they have their volunteers working?
Too much work? Too Risky?
Usually ‘people who don’t show up to vote’ are the ones ‘voted’. It’s another reason the FBI should seed voter roles with fake names... then when non-existent people show up as being ‘voted’ you’ve caught democrats doing fraud.
~~~
Now that I have been elucidated to the fact that there is no way to verify a ballot belongs to a legitimate voter after the fact, and for very important reasons including voter anonymity, I think this is idea seems to me like the next best alternative to doing fraud sampling.
But I have a question: Since we know the FBI wont do it, I ask why can’t private citizens and media organizations do it? The later would be preferred, because the media can go straight to the presses when they get evidence of fraud, as well as the fact they are more likely to have some degree of protections under the first amendment from being prosecuted for fraud themselves.
Why can’t an investigative team at Fox News, or the Washington Times, or the Wall Street Journal submit a dozen or so carefully prepared voter registration applications and then monitor the polling locations for those precincts or polling locations where they have their volunteers working?
Too much work? Too Risky?