Election irregularities, election fraud, past and present
First we have a report from Wisconsin about the 2020 election:
Explosive revelations in the Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau’s report on the 2020 presidential election confirm what many in the key swing state have long suspected: Those tasked with administering the election willfully ignored and openly violated state law…
Auditors reviewed 14,710 absentee ballots cast in 29 municipalities across the state, including nine of the 10 cities in which the highest numbers of absentee ballots were cast. Stunningly, the City of Madison refused to allow the LAB to physically handle its ballots. Madison, Wisconsin’s capital and the most heavily Democratic city in the state, was the primary reason Joe Biden won Dane County over Donald Trump, as it voted for Biden by a whopping 75.7 to 22.9 percent.
The review of ballot certificates revealed that 1,022 of the ballots reviewed (representing 6.9 percent) “had partial witness addresses because they did not have one or more components of a witness address, such as a street name, municipality, state, and zip code.” Fifteen of them (0.1 percent) “did not have a witness address in its entirety,” while eight (less than 0.1 percent) “did not have a witness signature,” and three (less than 0.1 percent) “did not have a voter’s signature.”…
Using the LAB’s numbers, it may be reasonably estimated that across the state 135,512 absentee ballot certificates only had a partial witness address, 2,002 did not have a witness address at all, 1,068 did not have a witness signature, and 401 did not have a voter signature. Biden defeated Trump in Wisconsin by just 20,682 votes.
Much much more at the link.
There are a lot of ways that elections can be fraudulent and/or can raise a strong suspicion of fraud and/or significant error – which in some ways is just as bad because if faith in the integrity of elections is undermined it hurts the entire country. One way is by passing election rules that give ample opportunity for fraud. Another way is by skirting more stringent and protective rules by not enforcing them. Another way is outright fraud: the manufacture of fake votes or the purposeful counting of fake votes.
The Wisconsin audit illustrates how hard – actually, impossible – it is to know ex post facto whether enough errors and/or fraud existed to change the outcome of an election, especially a close one. And that’s what the fraudsters and those who relax the rules are banking on.
NOTE: To bring us to the present, we have New Jersey and its history of voting fraud.
The so-called “Big Lie”, pace the oft-repeated narrative of the MSM, is not the claim from the right about all the irregularities in 2020’s election, but the claim that the election which resulted in the installing of the illegitimate puppet now residing at 1600 was “free and fair”, when, in fact, it violated numerous elements on the checklist provided by our very own Department of State to determine whether serious problems have occurred in a particular election.
NJ born and raised here – I remember my high school history teacher, who was born and raised in Jersey City show us how cheating was done on paper ballots while counting them.
He had a small pencil (the small kind that you use at Ikea) that he held in the palm of his hand while counting ballots. With practice it really wasn’t that hard to do so that others didn’t even know that you were holding a small pencil. If you noticed that the opposing candidate was getting too many votes you would simply “swipe” the pencil across the paper ballot. This then made that ballot invalid because any ballot that had markings that made it so that it wasn’t clear who the voter intended the ballot was not counted.
Of course, paper ballots aren’t used any more – but, the cheating has not gone away, it has simply become more complex.
“Those tasked with administering the election willfully ignored and openly violated state law…” cited report from Wisconsin
If no prosecution, dox the responsible individuals. Then apply extra-legal consequences. Absent the rule of law, the only antidote to corruption and tyranny is grave physical consequence.
They probably should have studied how many duplicate/names/addresses were of this sort:
John Smith
1234 Main Street
Somewhere, Wisconsin
When you are filling out tons of ballots for other people, your imagination on filling out the witness material is going to be limited.
There is a silver lining in New Jersey, a truck driver defeated the democrat senate president after spending on $153 what a blast.
Robert Shotzberger:
The truck driver says $153 is the amount he spent on the primary. He spent a whopping $5K on the election. He says he pounded the pavement and went door to door talking to people.
Speaking of the truck driver winning, they apparently “found” 12000 uncounted ballots in some unidentified county so what’s his face isn’t conceding. Wish I had a fraction of that kind of luck.
“[T]hey apparently “found” 12000 uncounted ballots in some unidentified county so what’s his face isn’t conceding.”
Of course they did and 99% will be for the incumbent [D].
The study identified illegal votes, but an investigation is needed to identify if some of the votes were fraudulent. Were any of these votes from people who had died, had moved out of Wisconsin or were incompetent residents of care facilities? Just a few examples from this sample should create probable cause for a thorough forensic audit like the one done in Arizona. The only other way to stop illegal votes is for a large number of GOP election monitors working in suspect counties to issue provisional challenges to all illegal votes before they are counted. A statute sanctioning allowance of illegal votes is also needed.
@ Dale > “A statute sanctioning allowance of illegal votes is also needed.”
I understand what you propose (and agree), but it has bothered me for years that the word “sanction” has two diametrically opposed definitions and usages, and if a sentence is not phrased correctly, it can be ambiguous about which one is intended.
The Democrats, for instance, would have opted for the “permitted” use rather than the “proscribed” one had they written that sentence.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sanction
1: to make valid or binding usually by a formal procedure (such as ratification)
2: to give effective or authoritative approval or consent to
3a: to attach a sanction or penalty to the violation of (a right, obligation, or command)
b: to impose a sanction or penalty upon
Pingback:Election irregularities, election fraud, past and present – The New Neo – Wince and Nod