0
0

[–] Link1299 ago 

Fucking

Kansas

I hate this state

0
2

[–] diafeetus 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Geochemist and pseudo-statistician here -- having looked at the analysis and data provided by the original author, it looks like this is all very straightforward: it is election fraud. I do not think there is any room for debate -- or politics here. This needs to be brought to light.

0
1

[–] cynoclast [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

0
2

[–] Lighting 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

This is a public process that creates the legitimacy of the entire elected government. There's absolutely zero reason to deny the audit unless there's something to hide. Kobach, Brownback, and their cronies are pathetic.

1
-1

[–] didntsayeeeee 1 point -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

Clickbait. Kansas hates her! This mom mathematician proved voter fraud with this one weird trick!

Kansas isn't "trying to silence her". She's just not allowed her hands on the ballots for various legal reasons.

I haven't read her alleged paper so I don't know whether her case is reasonable or not. Judging by the standards of most of the "here, be outraged by this!" shit I read on the Internet, I am guessing it's BS.

0
0

[–] cynoclast [S] ago  (edited ago)

Analyzing election returns at a precinct level, Clarkson found that candidate support was correlated, to a statistically significant degree, with the size of the precinct. In Republican primaries, the bias has been toward the establishment candidates over tea partiers. In general elections, it has favored Republican candidates over Democrats, even when the demographics of the precincts in question suggested that the opposite should have been true.

The irregularities are isolated to precincts that use “Central Tabulator” voting machines — machines that have previously been shown to be vulnerable to hacking. The effects are significant and widespread: According to their analysis, Mitt Romney could have received over a million extra votes in the 2012 Republican primary, mostly coming at the expense of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich.** President Obama also ceded significant votes to John McCain due to this irregularity**, as well.

It's painfully obvious that entrenched republicans are behind this, and that they're committing election fraud.

Based on your reaction to these facts, I'm guessing you're a republican. Maybe you shouldn't be, since your party is obviously corrupt and resorting to things that in other countries we would rightly a dictatorship or authoritative regime in order to stay in power.

I'm not a democrat, because they're almost as bad, but corruption is corruption. There's no reason in a democracy to dispute a recount, or to deny this mathematician access to data that could prove or disprove her hypothesis.

0
1

[–] diafeetus 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

The legal reasons appeared to be rubbish: protecting voter identity by refusing to hand over voter records that don't have any names on them? "Losing" formal requests for information? You can't do that. It's blatantly obstructionist.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 22 points (+22|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

1
1

[–] MayTheDerpBeWithYou 1 point 1 point (+2|-1) ago 

Alas, but only one upvoat to give.

4
-2

[–] Cid 4 points -2 points (+2|-4) ago 

Honestly, who cares if there's fraud? It's not like our votes are what gets people elected (in presidential elections). We all vote to tell the electors who we want, but they are under no obligation to vote based on the popular results. Not only that but with the way the electors are dived up among the states it's not even like everyone's vote is equal. This isn't democracy.

I just don't see the point in complaining about cheating a broken system. My priorities are different I guess.

0
0

[–] cwt ago  (edited ago)

It's not like our votes are what gets people elected (in presidential elections). We all vote to tell the electors who we want, but they are under no obligation to vote based on the popular results.

There have been 9 faithless electors in the last hundred years, and none have affected the outcome of the election. That means about 99.93% of the time, they vote for the candidate they are pledged to. Seems like an odd thing to get worked up about.

0
1

[–] Cid 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

It exists that way and that's enough. There's also the issue of elector distribution among the states leading to people in some states having a vote that is worth more than others in other states. It's not that I don't care about fraud, I would just rather have an honest system first.

[–] [deleted] ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] Cid ago 

I'm not apathetic, I just care more about having an honest system more than people cheating the shit we have now. It's called priorities, not apathy. I even said that in my original post. It's like we need major surgery but people are more concerned with a treating the flu.

0
0

[–] Boredhermit ago 

I would like to add to this, because I feel the same way. Where does it state that the "electors" have to vote based on "the peoples" vote?

0
0

[–] Cid ago 

Where does it state that the "electors" have to vote based on "the peoples" vote?

Nowhere. Don't get me wrong, they will almost always certainty vote the way the people want, and there's very very few cases where they didn't, but the fact it exists this way leaves an opening for potential corruption and exploitation at the cost of democracy. That's a dangerous exploit to leave unfixed, especially with the direction America has gone and with how little power the people actually have.

0
17

[–] voat_gold 0 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago 

Notice that it is election fraud and not voter fraud. Voter ID restrictions would do nothing to stop this.

0
5

[–] cgsur 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Voter ID restrictions lower the need for moar fraud./s

5
-5

3
5

[–] cynoclast [S] 3 points 5 points (+8|-3) ago 

Voter ID restrictions actually reduce the need for election fraud when usurping democracy, which is why Republicans do it.

load more comments ▼ (3 remaining)