How Dallas Elections Really Work

by Maddog Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:06 pm

It starts with a knock. Someone in your family opens the door, because you’re old, most likely over 80, certainly poor, possibly infirm, probably a minority. You see a familiar face. She is a community organizer, young, passionate. She has come by often, campaigning for Obama or Wendy Davis. Today she comes bearing a fruit basket, because she wants to help. She’s also kind enough to carry in your mail.

It just so happens that today’s mail brings a large envelope. The envelope contains a letter from the Secretary of State, who thanks you for doing your civic duty. There are pages of instructions in English and Spanish. There is a mail-in ballot for early voting. There is a carrier envelope that must be signed and used to deliver the ballot. The nice woman with the fruit asks if you’d like some help filling out your ballot. Of course you would. It’s all very confusing. She asks you to sign on the envelope and says she’ll take care of the rest.

That’s one scenario. The details can change. The harvesters who show up just as your ballot is delivered, maybe they have to ask you if you’ve already brought your ballot inside. Maybe they find the package in the mailbox, put it on a clipboard, and ask you to sign your name to the carrier envelope for some bogus reason. Maybe you never vote, so these harvesters just take your ballot out of the mailbox for themselves—and you never miss it.

Why are these big envelopes being sent to many people who didn’t even request a mail-in ballot? Because before these ballots were harvested, these precincts were “seeded.” Large batches of applications for ballots, stuffed in manila envelopes, had arrived at the county elections office, each request with a name from voter lists that had also been requested from said office. That elections office alerted harvesters to when the precincts would receive their ballots by mail, so the nice woman with the fruit would know when to have her basket ready.

https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2017/august/how-dallas-city-council-elections-work-fraud-mail-in-ballot/

Much more at the link, for those interested in how a lot of this crap goes down.

by Maddog Fri Nov 06, 2020 4:28 pm

Those tales are about the harvesters. They’re the minnows. The big fish, the people who organize and pay for these operations, they’re the big prize. Hooking those big fish has been Aaron Harris’ mission ever since he ran a small campaign in Tarrant County in 2015 and saw his candidate lose the day-of election 52–48 percent, but get smoked by a nearly 4–1 margin in mail-in votes. The next day, Fort Worth reporters suggested to him that these sorts of “inorganic” mail-in ballot totals are just how it goes in Fort Worth politics. “The third member of the media that called,” Harris says. “She said, ‘Well, have you figured it out yet?’ I literally stood up so fast out of my chair my knee sent my chair flying. I just started screaming and cussing at this reporter. I said, ‘If everybody knows there’s some bullshit going on, why aren’t y’all figuring it out? Why aren’t you doing your damn job?’ ”

The response—essentially “We’re understaffed”—didn’t placate Harris. “If you’re not going to do your damn job, give me three names and three phone numbers, and I’ll do it,” he said. “Two years later, we have four active criminal investigations in four different counties.”

And its not just Dallas. Same happens in Ben's old hood and my current one.

And Ben can vouch for D Magazine not being a right wing rag.

by Original Quill Fri Nov 06, 2020 5:15 pm

Hmmm... It's something we are asked to do hundreds of time a day...sign here, don't have time for you to read it! But the presumption is that you reviewed and approved of what is written. That's what "signature" means.

Voter crimes used to happen as a part of Jim Crow laws, to harvest the votes of blacks in the south. Blacks couldn't read, and a nice white man promised to do everything for him.

Fortunately, this scenario doesn't happen very often. It's a crime: fraud and conspiracy to defraud, obstruction of justice and conspiracy to obstruct justice, and in some instances, specific voter laws. Leslie McCrae Dowless was prosecuted in North Carolina for doing this for the Republican candidate for the House, Mark Harris, in 2016. But it's rare.
https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-nc-election-fraud-charge-20190227-story.html

by Maddog Fri Nov 06, 2020 5:26 pm

Speaking of reading, did you read the article or is that beneath a man of your intellect?

by Original Quill Fri Nov 06, 2020 5:55 pm

Maddog wrote:Speaking of reading, did you read the article or is that beneath a man of your intellect?

Yes, I read it. Heavy on setting up the crime scenario of vote harvesting, but with no evidence that it is actually happening. Anyone can write novels. But, reality needs facts.

You can't generalize from specifics.

by Maddog Fri Nov 06, 2020 8:01 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:Speaking of reading, did you read the article or is that beneath a man of your intellect?

Yes, I read it. Heavy on setting up the crime scenario of vote harvesting, but with no evidence that it is actually happening. Anyone can write novels. But, reality needs facts.

You can't generalize from specifics.

There have been convictions.

Mail in voting is ripe for harvesting.

That's why it should be limited to those with health issues.

by Original Quill Fri Nov 06, 2020 9:12 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Yes, I read it. Heavy on setting up the crime scenario of vote harvesting, but with no evidence that it is actually happening. Anyone can write novels. But, reality needs facts.

You can't generalize from specifics.

There have been convictions.

Mail in voting is ripe for harvesting.

That's why it should be limited to those with health issues.

Nonsense. The convictions have been few and far between, and mostly the wrongdoers have been on the RW side. It smells of a pretext for voter suppression.

I don't know what "ripe for" means, but it is no justification for a law that has no offenders. There are already sufficient laws against fraud and obstruction on the books. I'm surprised to see a libertarian who want's laws without a purpose.

by Ben Reilly Fri Nov 06, 2020 10:20 pm

I'm personally putting a pin in this issue -- it does sound shady as hell, but until I see evidence of widespread election fraud, I'm not going to believe in widespread election fraud.

It would take a massive, massive harvesting operation to tilt the vote in places as big as Texas, let alone California. I'd have to see a lot more to convince me that something that big could be going on under everyone's noses without anybody finding them out.

by Maddog Sat Nov 07, 2020 12:14 am

Ben Reilly wrote:I'm personally putting a pin in this issue -- it does sound shady as hell, but until I see evidence of widespread election fraud, I'm not going to believe in widespread election fraud.

It would take a massive, massive harvesting operation to tilt the vote in places as big as Texas, let alone California. I'd have to see a lot more to convince me that something that big could be going on under everyone's noses without anybody finding them out.

How big of an operation would it take to produce an extra 10,000 votes in Detroit, Philadelphia or Atlanta?

10,000 votes may or may not be enough to get it done. But it can't hurt your side of you pull it off.

Do you think this only happens in Dallas and Ft Worth?

by Original Quill Sat Nov 07, 2020 12:20 am

'Could happen' is a far cry from 'Did happen'. Show the evidence, before anyone cares. You can't generalize from possibilities.

by Maddog Sat Nov 07, 2020 12:28 am

Court documents filed in this week name more people the State of Texas says were connected to a vote harvesting scheme in Tarrant County.

The state indicted four women this month who prosecutors said were requesting mail-in ballots and filling them out for the Democratic Party.

New documents say Leticia Sanchez was receiving money to pay the other women for votes they collected.

The documents also say ballot applications were sent from the office of former Fort Worth City Councilman Sal Espino, but he is not charged in the case.

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2018/10/25/documents-vote-harvesting-scheme-tarrant-county/

More from Ft Worth.

by Maddog Sat Nov 07, 2020 12:33 am

Original Quill wrote:'Could happen' is a far cry from 'Did happen'. Show the evidence, before anyone cares. You can't generalize from possibilities.

I never said it happened in this election.

Just that it has in previous elections and that this election has many more mail in ballots. Those ballots have moved the election to Biden.

It looks fishy which is going to delegitimize his election in the eyes of many.

by Original Quill Sat Nov 07, 2020 1:05 am

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:'Could happen' is a far cry from 'Did happen'. Show the evidence, before anyone cares. You can't generalize from possibilities.

I never said it happened in this election.

Just that it has in previous elections and that this election has many more mail in ballots. Those ballots have moved the election to Biden.

It looks fishy which is going to delegitimize his election in the eyes of many.

Nothing surprising there. The Covid-19 factor accounts for the heavy mail-in voting. It's just heightened belief that Covid-19 is dangerous.

Trump made Covid-19 a political issue, refusing to wear masks and holding big rallies. This self-selected RW voters to mingle and socially crowd, favoring in-person voting.

LW voters, quite naturally, stayed away and mailed in their votes.

by Maddog Sat Nov 07, 2020 1:09 am

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

I never said it happened in this election.

Just that it has in previous elections and that this election has many more mail in ballots. Those ballots have moved the election to Biden.

It looks fishy which is going to delegitimize his election in the eyes of many.

Nothing surprising there. The Covid-19 factor accounts for the heavy mail-in voting. It's just heightened belief that Covid-19 is dangerous.

Trump made Covid-19 a political issue, refusing to wear masks and holding big rallies. This self-selected RW voters to mingle and socially crowd, favoring in-person voting.

LW voters, quite naturally, stayed away and mailed in their votes.

You don't understand people very well.

by Maddog Sat Nov 07, 2020 2:12 am

KILGORE, Texas (KTRK) -- With top Republicans, including the president, bringing up claims of fraud involving voting-by-mail, indictments announced Thursday against a Democratic county commissioner in East Texas appear to bolster those accusations.

The office of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced 134 felony charges were filed against Gregg County Commissioner Shannon Brown and three co-defendants in connection to an alleged vote harvesting scheme involving a Democratic primary in 2018.

According to Paxton's office, Brown and others targeted "young, able-bodied" voters to cast ballots by mail by fraudulently claiming the voters were "disabled," in most cases without the voters' knowledge or consent. The indictments claim this was done to increase the pool of ballots needed to swing the race in Brown's favor.

https://abc13.com/texas-vote-by-mail-fraud-ken-paxton-in-ballot-gregg-county-commission-arrested/6544331/

More from Texas.

by Maddog Sat Nov 07, 2020 2:17 am

A Texas mayoral candidate was arrested Wednesday night and faces felony voter fraud charges after allegedly sending 84 applications for mail-in ballots.

Zul Mohamed, who's running to become the mayor of Carrollton, a city roughly one hour north of Dallas, was charged with 25 counts of knowingly possessing a ballot with intent to defraud, a second-degree felony, and 84 counts of providing false info on a voting application, a third-degree felony, according to the Texas attorney general's office.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/texas-mayoral-candidate-arrested-for-mail-in-ballot-fraud

And more.

by Ben Reilly Sat Nov 07, 2020 2:21 am

No fake votes, though. And 84 are hardly enough to tip a statewide election.

by Maddog Sat Nov 07, 2020 2:26 am

Ben Reilly wrote:No fake votes, though. And 84 are hardly enough to tip a statewide election.

How would you know if they were fake?

The ballot is signed and counted. That's the beauty of this kind of fraud.

84 was done by one guy working alone.

by Ben Reilly Sat Nov 07, 2020 2:42 am

Maddog wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:No fake votes, though. And 84 are hardly enough to tip a statewide election.

How would you know if they were fake?

The ballot is signed and counted. That's the beauty of this kind of fraud.

84 was done by one guy working alone.

Have you heard of registered voter rolls?

by Maddog Sat Nov 07, 2020 4:45 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
Maddog wrote:

How would you know if they were fake?

The ballot is signed and counted. That's the beauty of this kind of fraud.

84 was done by one guy working alone.

Have you heard of registered voter rolls?

Yes. They have dead people on them.

Ever notice why the word "widespread" is placed in front of the phrase "voter fraud"?

It's basically an admission that it happens but in the eyes of the speaker or writer, it's not significant.

Like shoplifting isn't really stealing I guess.

by Original Quill Sat Nov 07, 2020 5:13 pm

Maddog wrote:Ever notice why the word "widespread" is placed in front of the phrase "voter fraud"?

Ever notice the word 'no' precedes the word 'widespread' in the phrase 'no widespread voter fraud'?

by Maddog Sat Nov 07, 2020 6:35 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:Ever notice why the word "widespread" is placed in front of the phrase "voter fraud"?

Ever notice the word 'no' precedes the word 'widespread' in the phrase 'no widespread voter fraud'?

Yes. I guess "no widespread" is similar to "just the tip". It doesn't really count.

by Ben Reilly Sat Nov 07, 2020 8:36 pm

One-off attempts at voter fraud are to be expected now and then. Unless an election comes down to under a few hundred votes' margin of difference, they're just a nuisance even if they succeed.

Widespread voter fraud would be far more sinister, as it would imply that it was done by at least one powerful entity, bent on undermining the democratic process.

by Ben Reilly Sat Nov 07, 2020 8:40 pm

Maddog wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:
Maddog wrote:

How would you know if they were fake?

The ballot is signed and counted. That's the beauty of this kind of fraud.

84 was done by one guy working alone.

Have you heard of registered voter rolls?

Yes. They have dead people on them.

Ever notice why the word "widespread" is placed in front of the phrase "voter fraud"?

It's basically an admission that it happens but in the eyes of the speaker or writer, it's not significant.

Like shoplifting isn't really stealing I guess.

A few of them might have a few dead people on them.

You'd have to know their names, though, and hope nobody notices they died.

by Maddog Sat Nov 07, 2020 11:01 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:One-off attempts at voter fraud are to be expected now and then. Unless an election comes down to under a few hundred votes' margin of difference, they're just a nuisance even if they succeed.

Widespread voter fraud would be far more sinister, as it would imply that it was done by at least one powerful entity, bent on undermining the democratic process.

So folks write checks to vote harvesters knowing it's a waste of time?

by Maddog Sat Nov 07, 2020 11:02 pm

Let's say a police department catches 100 speeders that day. Does that mean there were only 100 people speeding in that city that day?

by Original Quill Sun Nov 08, 2020 12:01 am

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Ever notice the word 'no' precedes the word 'widespread' in the phrase 'no widespread voter fraud'?

Yes. I guess "no widespread" is similar to "just the tip". It doesn't really count.

You are making a semantical argument. That doesn't mean the underlying facts don't count. To the contrary. Despite Trump's arguments that depend on 'Shoulda...' and 'Coulda...', the only one that matters is the actual Fact: NO EVIDENCE OF VOTER FRAUD.

It's almost comical to see Trump lawyers filing actions in Federal District Court alleging voter fraud. When the Judge says: "Where's the evidence(?)" the lawyers say, it 'coulda" happened that way, or "it shoulda" happened another way, but 'we have no evidence'.

Trump, in his autocratic way, is demanding his lawyers make these arguments on the presumption that everything is despotic and political. He doesn't understand the legal equation: Law + Facts = Justice. He figures because he appointed these judges, they should agree with his inane legal propositions. But, those same lawyers, and judges, also owe their status to their law schools, professors and books, which taught them standards other that 'you owe me' or 'I made you'.

So, no.: Arguments that depend on couda and shoulda lack a factual basis. You can't invent facts, anymore than you can wish a pandemic away by merely saying: Wellness is just around the corner. Trump simply doesn't understand facts, or any profession that depends upon facts.

by eddie Sun Nov 08, 2020 12:34 am

Erm...you do both realise that political arguments can never really be resolved, don’t you? It’s a matter of perspective. Like most things.

Political matters are always a diverse subject. Mostly because we, as mere bystanders, don’t ever truly know what the truth is and what really goes down behind those big, heavy, soundproof, wooden, political doors.

by Original Quill Sun Nov 08, 2020 1:04 am

eddie wrote:Erm...you do both realise that political arguments can never really be resolved, don’t you? It’s a matter of perspective. Like most things.

Political matters are always a diverse subject. Mostly because we, as mere bystanders, don’t ever truly know what the truth is and what really goes down behind those big, heavy, soundproof, wooden, political doors.

But this isn't an argument about political matters. It's an argument about law and logical positivism: in order for a statement to have content, it must have facts. The law is built upon that reasoning.

Perhaps it appears political because a person with an infirm or atrophied mind got into political office, and expressed the contrary. But in truth, as well as context, it was a conversation about logic.

by eddie Sun Nov 08, 2020 1:34 am

Ah...logic. Just like politics.
To each, their own.

by Original Quill Sun Nov 08, 2020 5:01 am

eddie wrote:Ah...logic. Just like politics.
To each, their own.

I disagree. Politics is often quite illogical. Logic is perfect, and politics is often compromise...and thus imperfect.

by Maddog Sun Nov 08, 2020 6:07 am

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Yes. I guess "no widespread" is similar to "just the tip". It doesn't really count.

You are making a semantical argument. That doesn't mean the underlying facts don't count. To the contrary. Despite Trump's arguments that depend on 'Shoulda...' and 'Coulda...', the only one that matters is the actual Fact: NO EVIDENCE OF VOTER FRAUD.

It's almost comical to see Trump lawyers filing actions in Federal District Court alleging voter fraud. When the Judge says: "Where's the evidence(?)" the lawyers say, it 'coulda" happened that way, or "it shoulda" happened another way, but 'we have no evidence'.

Trump, in his autocratic way, is demanding his lawyers make these arguments on the presumption that everything is despotic and political. He doesn't understand the legal equation: Law + Facts = Justice. He figures because he appointed these judges, they should agree with his inane legal propositions. But, those same lawyers, and judges, also owe their status to their law schools, professors and books, which taught them standards other that 'you owe me' or 'I made you'.

So, no.: Arguments that depend on couda and shoulda lack a factual basis. You can't invent facts, anymore than you can wish a pandemic away by merely saying: Wellness is just around the corner. Trump simply doesn't understand facts, or any profession that depends upon facts.

This has nothing to do with Trump. It's about how much fraud is centered around mail in ballots. For all we know, Trump could be guilty of vote harvesting. It's not like only one party does it.

by Original Quill Sun Nov 08, 2020 3:29 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You are making a semantical argument. That doesn't mean the underlying facts don't count. To the contrary. Despite Trump's arguments that depend on 'Shoulda...' and 'Coulda...', the only one that matters is the actual Fact: NO EVIDENCE OF VOTER FRAUD.

It's almost comical to see Trump lawyers filing actions in Federal District Court alleging voter fraud. When the Judge says: "Where's the evidence(?)" the lawyers say, it 'coulda" happened that way, or "it shoulda" happened another way, but 'we have no evidence'.

Trump, in his autocratic way, is demanding his lawyers make these arguments on the presumption that everything is despotic and political. He doesn't understand the legal equation: Law + Facts = Justice. He figures because he appointed these judges, they should agree with his inane legal propositions. But, those same lawyers, and judges, also owe their status to their law schools, professors and books, which taught them standards other that 'you owe me' or 'I made you'.

So, no.: Arguments that depend on couda and shoulda lack a factual basis. You can't invent facts, anymore than you can wish a pandemic away by merely saying: Wellness is just around the corner. Trump simply doesn't understand facts, or any profession that depends upon facts.

This has nothing to do with Trump. It's about how much fraud is centered around mail in ballots. For all we know, Trump could be guilty of vote harvesting. It's not like only one party does it.

No...vote harvesting is a form of fixing an election...just like voter suppression. That is strictly a Republican tactic.

Trump is indeed going to court, and is indeed pitching an argument that depends on coulda; to wit: Mail-in ballots are a fraud because they coulda been used to cast multiple votes. Coulda is a conditional argument, where the conditions have not been met. There is no evidence that the ballots were, in fact, used to cast multiple votes. So, it's only a coulda argument, and not a factual argument.

Law depends upon facts. The formula is: Justice = Facts + Law; that is, the process of Law equals facts plus the specific formal law. Former law provides the framework, and the facts tell us whether the framework was violated. Without facts, there is nothing to complain about. It is a bogus argument.

This has everything to do with Trump, because he is the party making the bogus argument. I think the difference between conditional and factual confuses him. However, it is the reason why his cases keep getting thrown out of court.

by Maddog Sun Nov 08, 2020 3:32 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

This has nothing to do with Trump. It's about how much fraud is centered around mail in ballots. For all we know, Trump could be guilty of vote harvesting. It's not like only one party does it.

No...vote harvesting is a form of fixing an election...just like voter suppression. That is strictly a Republican tactic.

Trump is indeed going to court, and is indeed pitching an argument that depends on coulda; to wit: Mail-in ballots are a fraud because they coulda been used to cast multiple votes. Coulda is a conditional argument, where the conditions have not been shown to have taken place. There is no evidence that the ballots were, in fact, used to cast multiple votes. So, it's only a coulda argument, and not a factual argument.

Law depends upon facts. The formula is: Justice = Facts + Law; that is, the process of Law equals facts plus the specific formal law. Former law provides the framework, and the facts tell us whether the framework was violated. Without facts, there is nothing to complain about. It is a bogus argument.

This has everything to do with Trump, because he is the one making the bogus argument. I think the difference between conditional and factual confuses him. However, it is the reason why his cases keep getting thrown out of court.

Go back and read the article.

by Original Quill Sun Nov 08, 2020 3:38 pm

To what end? I have already read the article. It presents a conditional argument, and nowhere presents facts of a deluge of voter fraud violations.

At best, it is an interesting fictional story-line.

by Maddog Sun Nov 08, 2020 7:28 pm

Original Quill wrote:To what end? I have already read the article. It presents a conditional argument, and nowhere presents facts of a deluge of voter fraud violations.

At best, it is an interesting fictional story-line.

Members of an organized voter fraud ring have been arrested and indicted on charges they targeted and, in one case stole, the votes of elderly voters on Fort Worth’s north side.

Four people were arrested — Leticia Sanchez, Leticia Sanchez Tepichin, Maria Solis and Laura Parra — after being indicted on 30 felony counts of voter fraud, according to a statement from the Texas Attorney General’s Office.

This isn't fictional.

by Original Quill Sun Nov 08, 2020 8:25 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:To what end? I have already read the article. It presents a conditional argument, and nowhere presents facts of a deluge of voter fraud violations.

At best, it is an interesting fictional story-line.

Members of an organized voter fraud ring have been arrested and indicted on charges they targeted and, in one case stole, the votes of elderly voters on Fort Worth’s north side.

Four people were arrested — Leticia Sanchez, Leticia Sanchez Tepichin, Maria Solis and Laura Parra — after being indicted on 30 felony counts of voter fraud, according to a statement from the Texas Attorney General’s Office.

This isn't fictional.

4 people...one city...and no trial yet? "Organized voter fraud ring"? I'm shaking in my boots. Rolling Eyes

We're gonna find out it was the Ft. Worth book club. Wait until we see the evidence and a conviction at trial.

Btw, Texas went Republican, so I guess Jim Crow laws are still in effect. Why do you want to challenge Texas votes anyway?

Anyway, it won't change anything. You can't generalize from specifics.

by Maddog Sun Nov 08, 2020 11:33 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Members of an organized voter fraud ring have been arrested and indicted on charges they targeted and, in one case stole, the votes of elderly voters on Fort Worth’s north side.

Four people were arrested — Leticia Sanchez, Leticia Sanchez Tepichin, Maria Solis and Laura Parra — after being indicted on 30 felony counts of voter fraud, according to a statement from the Texas Attorney General’s Office.

This isn't fictional.

4 people...one city...and no trial yet? "Organized voter fraud ring"? I'm shaking in my boots. We're gonna find out it was the Ft. Worth book club. Wait until we see the evidence and a conviction at trial.

Btw, Texas went Republican, so I guess Jim Crow laws are still in effect. Why do you want to challenge Texas votes anyway?

Anyway, it won't change anything. You can't generalize from specifics.

A Gregg County commissioner charged with election fraud will continue to serve on the court while his case works its way through the judicial system.

Pct. 4 Commissioner Shannon Brown, 49, and three other people were arrested Thursday in connection with what the Texas Attorney General’s Office calls an organized vote-harvesting scheme during the 2018 Democratic primary election.

Brown was charged with 23 felonies, while Marlena Jackson, 50, of Marshall, was charged with 97 felonies. Charlie Burns, 84 of Longview, was charged with eight felonies, and DeWayne Ward, 58, of Longview, was charged with six felonies.

by Maddog Sun Nov 08, 2020 11:42 pm

CARROLLTON (CBSDFW.COM) – A mayoral candidate in Carrollton has been arrested and charged with voter fraud.

The Denton County Sheriff’s Office has Zul Mirza Mohamed in custody and charged him with 109 felonies related to voter fraud.

The investigation began September 23 when the sheriff’s office was notified by the Denton County Elections Office of possible fraudulent activity related to absentee ballot applications.

Officials say absentee ballots had been requested to be sent to a P.O. Box in Lewisville, that was supposed to belong to a nursing home facility. When investigators made contact with the Carrollton residents whose ballots had been requested they learned that none of the residents had asked for ballots be mailed to the PO Box.

by Original Quill Mon Nov 09, 2020 1:34 am

Are these all in Texas? I had no idea that Texas was so corrupt.

by Maddog Mon Nov 09, 2020 4:20 pm

Original Quill wrote:Are these all in Texas? I had no idea that Texas was so corrupt.

Yep. Corrupt folks know how to work the mail in ballots.

These examples are just those that get caught.

by Original Quill Mon Nov 09, 2020 4:38 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Are these all in Texas? I had no idea that Texas was so corrupt.

Yep. Corrupt folks know how to work the mail in ballots.

These examples are just those that get caught.

It's interesting, but unproductive as far as this year's presidential election. It is but one potential incident...and besides, Texas went for Trump.

Should be looking in Pennsylvania, and for more massive efforts to make a difference.

by Maddog Mon Nov 09, 2020 5:09 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Yep. Corrupt folks know how to work the mail in ballots.

These examples are just those that get caught.

It's interesting, but unproductive as far as this year's presidential election. It is but one potential incident...and besides, Texas went for Trump.

Should be looking in Pennsylvania, and for more massive efforts to make a difference.

Yeah, I never said that either party was responsible, and I know that it happens in other states.

My point is that mail in voting is where the fraud occurs and we had substantially more mail in voting.

Maybe Biden actually won Texas? Cool

by Original Quill Mon Nov 09, 2020 5:35 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

It's interesting, but unproductive as far as this year's presidential election. It is but one potential incident...and besides, Texas went for Trump.

Should be looking in Pennsylvania, and for more massive efforts to make a difference.

Yeah, I never said that either party was responsible, and I know that it happens in other states.

My point is that mail in voting is where the fraud occurs and we had substantially more mail in voting.

Maybe Biden actually won Texas?

It doesn't seem to be very significant. There are single, isolated cases with in-person and with mail-in voting. They are few and far between, not nearly enough to alter a presidential election with 150-million votes cast.

Let the local police worry about it.

by Maddog Mon Nov 09, 2020 8:54 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Yeah, I never said that either party was responsible, and I know that it happens in other states.

My point is that mail in voting is where the fraud occurs and we had substantially more mail in voting.

Maybe Biden actually won Texas?

It doesn't seem to be very significant. There are single, isolated cases with in-person and with mail-in voting. They are few and far between, not nearly enough to alter a presidential election with 150-million votes cast.

Let the local police worry about it.

It could matter in a state that was won by less than one percent.

And I agree, it should be looked into, because we want people accepting the results as honest.

by Original Quill Mon Nov 09, 2020 10:25 pm

It's all anecdotal. Until there are volumes of votes involved--and demonstrated by evidence--it won't make any difference in the election. All it is, is a good story.

As I say, treat it as a local matter.

by Maddog Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:51 am

Original Quill wrote:It's all anecdotal. Until there are volumes of votes involved--and demonstrated by evidence--it won't make any difference in the election. All it is, is a good story.

As I say, treat it as a local matter.

So only fraud that matter enough to change an election should be looked into ?

I believe that's probably how it goes down. Only close races are scrutinized.

Going back to the OP, that's how his initial exposure happened. No one looked into his race because the fraud was rampant enough, that the vote was no longer close. And the local media knew about it.

by Original Quill Tue Nov 10, 2020 4:33 pm

Maddog wrote:
Original Quill wrote:It's all anecdotal. Until there are volumes of votes involved--and demonstrated by evidence--it won't make any difference in the election. All it is, is a good story.

As I say, treat it as a local matter.

So only fraud that matter enough to change an election should be looked into ?

I believe that's probably how it goes down. Only close races are scrutinized.

Going back to the OP, that's how his initial exposure happened. No one looked into his race because the fraud was rampant enough, that the vote was no longer close. And the local media knew about it.

Well, first of all, I would like to see the OP case you raise, after the trial. I was serious when I said it sounded like a book club or a coffee klatch. Context is important, and I think the state will have a hard time convincing a jury that it was really ballot harvesting, and not just a friend helping an elderly person.

Second, it is important to our discussion only because Trump has raised rigged election as his excuse for losing an election of some 150-million votes. The kind of fraud you raise is not significant enough to change that large an election. It doesn't have the numbers, and besides, Texas went Republican so why challenge its results.

So if it's not relevant to the magnitude Trump is alleging, and not relevant to this election, why are we even discussing Dallas ballot harvesting?

by Maddog Wed Nov 11, 2020 12:01 am

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

So only fraud that matter enough to change an election should be looked into ?

I believe that's probably how it goes down. Only close races are scrutinized.

Going back to the OP, that's how his initial exposure happened. No one looked into his race because the fraud was rampant enough, that the vote was no longer close. And the local media knew about it.

Well, first of all, I would like to see the OP case you raise, after the trial. I was serious when I said it sounded like a book club or a coffee klatch. Context is important, and I think the state will have a hard time convincing a jury that it was really ballot harvesting, and not just a friend helping an elderly person.

Second, it is important to our discussion only because Trump has raised rigged election as his excuse for losing an election of some 150-million votes. The kind of fraud you raise is not significant enough to change that large an election. It doesn't have the numbers, and besides, Texas went Republican so why challenge its results.

So if it's not relevant to the magnitude Trump is alleging, and not relevant to this election, why are we even discussing Dallas ballot harvesting?

I'm not talking about Trump. You brought him up, not me.

This is about vote harvesting and how it is done.

by Maddog Wed Nov 11, 2020 12:04 am

Original Quill wrote:
Maddog wrote:

So only fraud that matter enough to change an election should be looked into ?

I believe that's probably how it goes down. Only close races are scrutinized.

Going back to the OP, that's how his initial exposure happened. No one looked into his race because the fraud was rampant enough, that the vote was no longer close. And the local media knew about it.

Well, first of all, I would like to see the OP case you raise, after the trial. I was serious when I said it sounded like a book club or a coffee klatch. Context is important, and I think the state will have a hard time convincing a jury that it was really ballot harvesting, and not just a friend helping an elderly person.

Second, it is important to our discussion only because Trump has raised rigged election as his excuse for losing an election of some 150-million votes. The kind of fraud you raise is not significant enough to change that large an election. It doesn't have the numbers, and besides, Texas went Republican so why challenge its results.

So if it's not relevant to the magnitude Trump is alleging, and not relevant to this election, why are we even discussing Dallas ballot harvesting?

https://abc3340.com/news/nation-world/texas-social-worker-charged-134-counts-election-fraud

MEXIA, Texas (KTXS) – A social worker in Texas has been charged with 134 counts in an election fraud investigation, officials with the Texas Attorney General's Office said.

Attorney General Ken Paxton announced Friday that his Election Fraud Unit and other officials charged Kelly Reagan Brunner, a social worker in the Mexia State Supported Living Center (SSLC), with 134 felony counts of "purportedly acting as an agent and of election fraud."

Brunner allegedly submitted voter registration applications for 67 residents without their signature or effective consent, while purporting to act as their agent.

by Sponsored content