Replies

Let me get this straight. You think a recount is necessary to prove fraudulent registration? I don't think so.

The object of the investigation is to catch those who practiced fraud. It is NOT to make Thune the winner.

I will be satisfied if it is pursued through the DOJ. If you do a recount, you will accomplish nothing except ill will.

Example: It is not necessary to do a recount to ascertain that there was a huge increase in registration of certain counties. It is not necessary to see that these new registrants had an exceptionally high turnout. What the DOJ will do is see if these are REAL people, if they indeed voted, and if they were eligible. Should 500 of them be found to be fraudulent, you cannot simply take 500 votes away from Johnson. How are you going to prove how these 500 fraudulent voters voted? We can assume that they were Johnson votes, but you can't PROVE it.

A recount does nothing to help the investigation. I realize you are frustrated, but we are in a long war here, and your state unfortunately was a defeat AT THIS TIME. But if there is widespread fraud uncovered and prosecuted, then Thune's sacrifice and that of the Republicians WHO VOTED FOR HIM in South Dakota will be part of a larger victory.

The best way to stop voter fraud is to make sure that we have Republicans AT EVERY VOTER PRECINCT in the country monitoring the process.

It boggles my mind that we allow entire counties to be run by Democrats. Nobody watches them.

Example: It is not necessary to do a recount to ascertain that there was a huge increase in registration of certain counties. It is not necessary to see that these new registrants had an exceptionally high turnout. What the DOJ will do is see if these are REAL people, if they indeed voted, and if they were eligible. Should 500 of them be found to be fraudulent, you cannot simply take 500 votes away from Johnson. How are you going to prove how these 500 fraudulent voters voted? We can assume that they were Johnson votes, but you can't PROVE it.

Agreed. There might be some state election laws that could come into play. I know that, for example, in the county where I reside in Indiana, if a polling machine has a severe malfunction, the ballots from that machine will be discarded unless they could affect the outcome of a race. In that instance there would be a revote in that precinct. Same thing occurs if a entire precinct has issues. I'm unsure of the remedy for fraud, but generally, it seems that if the results from an area are considered unreliable, they are tossed out, unless there is a close race, then there would be a revote.

I guess that raises another question. If there is evidence of fraud that could have possibly affected the outcome, is there a prescribed remedy in SD?

Should 500 of them be found to be fraudulent, you cannot simply take 500 votes away from Johnson. How are you going to prove how these 500 fraudulent voters voted? We can assume that they were Johnson votes, but you can't PROVE it.

On the other hand, if you have 1000 fraudulent votes in an area that voted 90+% for Johnson, I think a reasonable argument could be made that if all votes for Thune were discounted first, then Johnsons to complete out the number, then Thune would pick up a sizable net change. It depends on how big the fraud is.