When is 141% --> 100% or less

[Xavier_Onassis]

In states that still do not require ID of voters , does there exist any method to prevent large scale multiple voting?

================================
Before we were required to show a photo ID in Florida, we were required to show a voter registration card, which had the precinct number printed on it. We were required to state our current address as well. This was checked against a printed sheet of voter names.

There was no "large scale multiple voting", not then, and not now.

[hnumpah]

So why bother to mention it?

Because its newsworthy...

Yeah yeah yeah, and it gets a pass in the media because they're biased, and et cetera and so on and so forth. So you got out and dig up some alarmist crap from Watchdogwire or something, written by someone who has about the same research skills you do, to support your view there was voter fraud, and when it is debunked, you go back to judges wearing hats and guys with leather jackets standing around.

The only demonstrated occurence of voter fraud I have seen in the news so far was the report of the lady writing in votes for Republican candidates. I'll admit, though, I have not come across other stories of fraud, maybe because I'm not looking for them to prove some point.

[sirs]

So why bother to mention it?

Because its newsworthy...

Yeah yeah yeah, and it gets a pass in the media because they're biased

You catch on slow....but at least you're catching on

[Plane]

In states that still do not require ID of voters , does there exist any method to prevent large scale multiple voting?

================================
Before we were required to show a photo ID in Florida, we were required to show a voter registration card, which had the precinct number printed on it. We were required to state our current address as well. This was checked against a printed sheet of voter names.

There was no "large scale multiple voting", not then, and not now.

1) What part of this process prevented counterfit or graveyard voting?
2) How did this requirement avoid being and onerous burden on the minority voter?

[hnumpah]

You catch on slow....but at least you're catching on

Since you're so fond of pointing out dictionary definitions, I suggest you look up sarcasm.

Catching on slow would be posting false claims from a partisan website posing as a legitimate news source without taking the time and effort to check them out first. From the time I read your post, read the article, found the explanation on snopes.com and checked it out against the pdf file of election results from St Lucie county was maybe 15 minutes. I would think you might be willing to invest that much time not to be seen as a disgruntled loser grasping at straws. Or are you so used to only having to respond to XO that you've forgotten how to verify facts?

[sirs]

You sure do have a hankering for trying to attack the messenger, while ignoring the message.  In this case the message remains of voting turn out that's greater than 100%.  Given the potential of voting manipulation, and how voter ID would likely stop this kind of double counting, I can see why you'd rather argue about leather jackets on a black panther member being no biggie, an Obama hat on an election judge no biggie, but a kkk sheet would

Point being, there is no reason, what-so-ever that a vote count would exceed 100%.  Pure & simple

[Xavier_Onassis]

 In this case the message remains of voting turn out that's greater than 100%.  Given the potential of voting manipulation, and how voter ID would likely stop this kind of double counting,

===============================================
Where did this occur?

There was no evidence at all that the President did not defeat Romney.

There was extensive investigation of voter fraud in FL, and there were NO cases of any dead people voting. Not one.

Eventually they discovered some woman apparently filling in the absentee ballots of people in nursing homes. The votes were for Republicans,but none was counted.

[Plane]

It is hard to believe that this sort of cheating does not happen at all.
It is easyer to believe that the rules make it pretty easy to get away with.

[Xavier_Onassis]

There would have to be a financial motive, because one candidate is hardly going to do this on his own behalf in numbers adequate to elect himself.

There is rarely such a motive.

Just because something is easy does not mean that it is likely to be done often.

It is easy to stick beans up your nose, for example, but quite rare.

[Plane]

There is very frequently such a motive!

How can such motive ever be absent?

[sirs]

In this case the message remains of voting turn out that's greater than 100%.  Given the potential of voting manipulation, and how voter ID would likely stop this kind of double counting,
===============================================
Where did this occur?

Start at the top of the thread, for that answer

[Plane]

http://www.slcelections.com/

This looks more like a case of needless complexity than of cheating.

Of course Needless complexity is its own sin.

[hnumpah]

Point being, there is no reason, what-so-ever that a vote count would exceed 100%.  Pure & simple

Not if you see it as a straight vote count, but I have explained to you how the count worked in St Lucie county.

If the entire ballot were on a single card, instead of two separate cards, the machine would never calculate a vote count over 100 percent. However, with candidates for the varioous races on one card, and proposed constitutional amendments on a second card, there are some people who simply do not care about one or the other, and do not vote that particular card.

When the cards are fed through the optical scanner, it only counts as 'cast cards' those that have votes recorded on them. If I voted for the various races (president, senator, congressman, state offices, which judges to retain, etc), that is counted as one card 'cast'. If I voted on any or all of the constitutional amendments on the second card, that is counted as the second card 'cast', so I would have two cards 'cast' for one complete ballot. If I decided not to vote for either any of the candidate races or vote on any of the amendments, that card would not have been counted as 'cast' and would have been rejected as a blank card. The machines, I suppose, could be reprogrammed each election, depending on whether the complete ballot is a one card ballot or a multicard ballot, at extra expense, but they weren't.

Why?

Blame the Republicans, for two reasons. First, our legislature is Republican controlled, and our governor is a Republican. They would have to approve the extra expense to reprogram the machines. Second, each and every one of the numerous, long winded amendments was proposed by our Republican legislature, to further their agenda (prevent gay marriage, deny state or federal funds for planned parenthood programs that include abortion as an option, etc). Not one of the amendments was on the ballot due to a citizen initiative. The Republicans are the reason we had a two card ballot to begin with.

[sirs]

Point being, there is no reason, what-so-ever that a vote count would exceed 100%.  Pure & simple

Not if you see it as a straight vote count, but I have explained to you how the count worked in St Lucie county.

Then it didn't work right now, did it.  1 person 1 vote.  If everyone, which would be incredibly astonishing outside of a dictatorship, voted, it'd be 100% tops.  We have a problem if we're getting 141% now, aren't we.  Best it be fixed....like yesterday

[hnumpah]

Point being, there is no reason, what-so-ever that a vote count would exceed 100%.  Pure & simple

Not if you see it as a straight vote count, but I have explained to you how the count worked in St Lucie county.

Then it didn't work right now, did it.  1 person 1 vote.  If everyone, which would be incredibly astonishing outside of a dictatorship, voted, it'd be 100% tops.  We have a problem if we're getting 141% now, aren't we.  Best it be fixed....like yesterday

LOL, feel free to write Governor Scott and our legislature and chew their asses.