Sunday, August 7

Amateur mistakes to avoid when rigging an election

When people who haven't had much experience rigging an election--either counting fraudulent votes or trashing genuine ones that were cast for their opponents--set out to do it, they often make amateur mistakes.

Two days ago South Africa--which not long ago had the highest per-capita income in all of Africa--had a nationwide election.  One of the parties, called the Cape Party, advocated that whites withdraw to a small "white enclave" to escape the epidemic of murders of whites by blacks, and the endemic corruption of the black ANC government.

One commenter in that country noted that even though he and three friends voted for the Cape Party in their local precinct, when the vote totals were published they showed NO VOTES for that party.  The guy complained to the local election board but they just shrugged it off.  "Oh, probably those ballots weren't stamped correctly, or were lost."  Hell of a coincidence that this would have happened four times out of four, eh?

Fortunately the Democrat party in this country is far more sophisticated when committing election fraud:  They learned years ago to always count at least a few votes in each precinct for the republican candidate, to prevent the fraud from being so obvious.  They also learned that people get a bit suspicious if the totals show more votes cast in a given precinct than there are registered voters.

(If you're curious, there have there many instances where Democrat-controlled precincts showed not a single Repub vote out of thousands cast, and many more in which the number of votes officially tallied have exceeded the number of registered voters by 15 percent or so.  Unfortunately ballots have no identifying marks, so there's no way to link a ballot to a given person.  This means that while one can show that it's statistically overwhelmingly likely that there was fraud, it can almost never be proven.)

Ever wonder why the Dems are so vehemently opposed to "voter ID" laws?  Oh sure, they claim it's because it's allegedly so incredibly, impossibly hard for minorities to obtain one of the ten or 12 different types of acceptable photo ID.  But if that's the real reason, why hasn't the Democrat party sued the *federal* government to kill the *federal* requirement that anyone who wants to fly on commercial airlines show photo ID, eh?  Why haven't they sued the *federal* government to kill the *federal* requirement that anyone wanting to open a bank account must show photo ID, eh?

It's obvious:  the Democrat claim that it's incredibly, impossibly hard for minorities to obtain photo ID is bullshit. What the Dems really want is the ability to continue to steal elections, as they've done for decades.

So...you might carefully examine the results of the November presidential election *on the precinct level.*  See how many precincts report more votes cast than registered voters.

Then figure out how to examine the lists of registered voters to see how many people shown on those rolls have died or have moved out of that precinct.  Then see how closely the total number of people reported as being registered to vote matches the rolls after dead people and those who've moved away have been subtracted.  In Dem-controlled states election commissions will report more registered voters than there are registered voters actually living in the district. 

The difference between those two numbers is the number of fraudulent votes that can be cast without raising even a hint of suspicion. 

The Democrat party has filed numerous lawsuits to prevent states from "purging" registration lists of dead or moved-away voters, because every person shown on the rolls of registered voters who's died or moved away offers cover for fraudulent votes later mysteriously "discovered" in the trunk of some Democrat precinct-worker's car if needed in a close race.  This has actually happened--literally--in several close races later won by the Dem candidate by 100 votes or so.

Of course it won't make any difference in this coming election because the number of morons who will vote for the lying, corrupt bitch from hell will sweep the race.  But it'll still be good practice in case there's ever a close presidential election again.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home