The dangers of entertaining conspiracies

zar45

All-American
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2016
4,705
11,774
113

2 – House of Representative results anomaly. The party whose candidate wins a Presidential election normally increases its representation in the House of Representatives thanks to the campaign momentum of the winning candidate at the top of the ticket. I’ve analysed the net House seat gains in each Presidential election since 1964 and the party winning the Presidency gains on average of net 16 House seats. Biden appears at this stage to be the 2020 winner however the Democrats are on track to lose a net of 12 House seats. This is a swing of -28 seats from the norm which is a huge statistical anomaly because normally a winning Presidential candidate has down ballot coattails that benefit House candidates for their party. This did not happen for Biden in 2020.

First and foremost: 2016 Trump fails this test. 2016 Dems gained seats while Trump won the Presidency.

I analyzed elections back to 1856 (the first presidential election for which the modern, contiguous Republican party ran). Of the 41 elections; 32 times, the President was of the same party as the Party which won the majority of House seats; 30 times, the President was of the same party as the Party which gained seats in the House; 30 times, the President was of the same party as the party which won the House popular vote.

In 2020 Democrats won the majority of House seats, the House popular vote, and the Presidency.

The numbers proposed are since 1964. Of the 14 elections; 8 times, the President was of the same party as the Party which won the majority of House seats; 10 times, the President was of the same party as the Party which gained seats in the House; 9 times, the President was of the same party as the party which won the House popular vote.

But, if we go back even one more election, to 1960: Of the 15 elections; 9 times, the President was of the same party as the Party which won the majority of House seats; 10 times, the President was of the same party as the Party which gained seats in the House; 10 times, the President was of the same party as the party which won the House popular vote.
 

zar45

All-American
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2016
4,705
11,774
113

12 – Michigan counties anomalies. MIT PhD engineer Dr. Shiva Ayyaddurai, did an interesting analysis of the Biden Trump split in 3 Michigan counties. He plotted the margin of victory of Trump over Biden on the x axis across precincts on the Y axis with the precincts ranked from left to right by the strength of the historical generic Republican vote weakest to strongest. When he did the analysis in Macomb County Michigan he saw that in the strongest Democrat precincts, the pattern remains the same but as the precincts became stronger and stronger for Republicans, the vote margin between Trump and Biden INCREASES in a direct linear line and this curious statistical anomaly happened identically for the election day vote and the early vote – the trend line is illustrated by the orange lines. The exact same trend line was observed in Kent and Oakland Counties (only McComb is shown but the others are virtually identical), again identical for election day and early voting. No real vote turns out like this smooth and linear in its progression nor would you expect a margin of Biden over Trump to get bigger the more conservative the precinct and so he hypothesises that a vote switching algorithm is the only logical way to explain such a statistical anomaly.

Shiva-2-768x568.jpg

 

stevehammer

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Sep 18, 2001
5,719
6,065
113
You are completely wrong. BLM did not start with George Floyd. BLM riots have caused way more death and destruction and there is no way to deny that.
No, they didn't start with Floyd, they started years prior due to a string if black people being murdered by cops. Wow, you don't get it at all, do you?
 

infinity13

Redshirt Freshman
Gold Member
Oct 21, 2007
850
793
93
46
Are we allowed to entertain open conspiracies written about by the likes of Carroll Quigley in Tragedy and Hope?
 

zar45

All-American
Gold Member
Jun 13, 2016
4,705
11,774
113

3 – Senate results anomaly. Anomalies even extend to the Senate where voting swings are less pronounced than the House due to the 6 year term and only 33% of Senate seats being up for re-election in a given Presidential election. Because so many Senate races involve incumbents who fundraise and campaign aggressively in addition to their party’s candidate at the top of the ticket, on average the number of votes cast for a Senate candidate of a party is more than the votes cast for the winning Presidential candidate of the same party. I have analysed the Senate voting patterns for 17 swing states since 1964 concentrating on the Senate races in states where the candidate for Senate is in the same party as the WINNING candidate for President. The numbers of races caught in this analysis ranges between 6 and 9 races per each Presidential election. The average vote differential between the Senate candidate and the winning Presidential candidate of the same party is 4.4% more votes for the Senate candidate over the Presidential candidate. The 2020 election bucks this trend with votes for Biden in the swing states exceeding his own party’s senate candidates votes by on average 2.5% (provisional results only of course). This is a statistically significant 7% swing which may not sound much but given Biden holds leads of 1% or less in four states (AZ, GA, WI, and PA), this differential is consequential. In Georgia, Biden polled 99,000 more votes than the Democrat Senate candidate in the normal two candidate Senate race in GA (a second Special Senate election was held for the other GA senate seat but it was a three way race). Sidney Powell (a Trump lawyer) estimates that, of those 99,000 excess Biden votes in GA, there were 65,000 votes solely for Biden and no other votes for any other candidate anywhere on the ballot. Biden’s current lead in GA is only 12,000.

I analyzed 104 swing states (every State Presidential election closer than 3% margin of victory and coincident with a Senatorial election since 1976). My analysis found that President's, on average, outperform the coincident Senator by 6.3%, with a standard deviation of 29 percentage points! This breadth of results renders the author's "significant 7% swing" absolutely expected.

Egregious violations of this so-called rule: Bush outrunning John Gillespe (WI) by 31% while losing Wisconsin by 0.2%, Bill Clinton outrunning Gordon Houston (TN) by 38% while winning Tennessee by 2.41%, and Reagan outrunning Mary Foust (KY) by 65% while winning Kentucky by 1.46%.
 

sklarbodds

Administrator
Moderator
Nov 30, 2006
32,537
38,148
113
I analyzed 104 swing states (every State Presidential election closer than 3% margin of victory and coincident with a Senatorial election since 1976). My analysis found that President's, on average, outperform the coincident Senator by 6.3%, with a standard deviation of 29 percentage points! This breadth of results renders the author's "significant 7% swing" absolutely expected.

Egregious violations of this so-called rule: Bush outrunning John Gillespe (WI) by 31% while losing Wisconsin by 0.2%, Bill Clinton outrunning Gordon Houston (TN) by 38% while winning Tennessee by 2.41%, and Reagan outrunning Mary Foust (KY) by 65% while winning Kentucky by 1.46%.
Dang. Internet beat down
 
  • Like
Reactions: zar45

Red_Hack

Assistant Head Coach
Dec 20, 2005
10,225
13,549
113
Mr. moderator, Sir....If you dont believe there was voter corruption,and the outcome was at least tenebrous, you are then, too stupid to be dangerous.
If you think the Democrats fixed hundreds of thousands of ballots, accross multiple states, and hundreds of polling locations, and did not leave a single shred of evidence to present a court, then the side you support, is dumb as crap, and leaders should not be in charge of a cactus.

Too dumb to figure out how, and find evidence.... too dumb to lead.
 

kidofSN

Junior
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
1,769
2,217
113
It is one thing to be dumber than a dirt fence. It is another to believe there were thousands of fraudulent ballots that caused Trump to lose. Stupid begets stupid I guess!
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevehammer

jehresm

Junior
Dec 1, 2013
1,886
4,109
113
It is one thing to be dumber than a dirt fence. It is another to believe there were thousands of fraudulent ballots that caused Trump to lose. Stupid begets stupid I guess!

Tt's a lie that people believe, because "How could have all these black and brown people voted after all the Republican efforts to disenfranchise them?"

That's why there's been so much effort of making voting even more difficult.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevehammer

auski

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
5,716
6,249
113
Tt's a lie that people believe, because "How could have all these black and brown people voted after all the Republican efforts to disenfranchise them?"

That's why there's been so much effort of making voting even more difficult.
With no voter photo ID laws, it's a lot easier to vote twice. :eek:
 

mhosek

Sophomore
Gold Member
Dec 11, 2001
1,293
1,023
113
With no voter photo ID laws, it's a lot easier to vote twice. :eek:
it was like a rigged football game. NU vs. A&M w/ Bo. F'n rigged, and just because the 'officials' said it wasn't, it doesn't change the optics, doesn't change how incredibly wrong it felt. And it has nothing, NOTHING to do with Trump, as said a billion times I'm glad he's gone and hope he doesn't resurface, but what happened was 'statistically improbable if not impossible' based on nerd-science... now I didn't like the Muslim. At all, he was a socialist in Sheep's Clothing that gave people 'a shrill up their leg' and LibBoners all over the country, but the guy won. Hands down, he won because he was a smooth talker promising a lot of free shit, and the GOP sent up absolute pansies to compete with him, but THIS last election just had a whole new dimension of conspiracy. The chances of thousands of ppl with detailed, consistent eyewitness accounts of the goings-on inside polling stations is just too much to brush over, and WAAAAYYYY more likely than the 'Russia stole the election' troll that went on for four years. Don't care what a bunch of lawyers decided what was right, because they're usually f'ing wrong. What the MSM has been pining on since January should tell you all you need to know... that shit was f'd up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: auski

ScarletNCream

Athletic Director
Gold Member
Jan 4, 2007
13,520
24,319
113
it was like a rigged football game. NU vs. A&M w/ Bo. F'n rigged, and just because the 'officials' said it wasn't, it doesn't change the optics, doesn't change how incredibly wrong it felt. And it has nothing, NOTHING to do with Trump, as said a billion times I'm glad he's gone and hope he doesn't resurface, but what happened was 'statistically improbable if not impossible' based on nerd-science... now I didn't like the Muslim. At all, he was a socialist in Sheep's Clothing that gave people 'a shrill up their leg' and LibBoners all over the country, but the guy won. Hands down, he won because he was a smooth talker promising a lot of free shit, and the GOP sent up absolute pansies to compete with him, but THIS last election just had a whole new dimension of conspiracy. The chances of thousands of ppl with detailed, consistent eyewitness accounts of the goings-on inside polling stations is just too much to brush over, and WAAAAYYYY more likely than the 'Russia stole the election' troll that went on for four years. Don't care what a bunch of lawyers decided what was right, because they're usually f'ing wrong. What the MSM has been pining on since January should tell you all you need to know... that shit was f'd up.

jfc, how do some of y’all get to the point of believing this stupid shit?
 

kidofSN

Junior
Gold Member
Jul 4, 2007
1,769
2,217
113
Stupid continues to show its ugly face here. WOW. Ignorance has been brought to the front. Truth and common sense is been left behind for some of you.
 

auski

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
May 29, 2001
5,716
6,249
113
Please explain in detail how you would vote twice without getting caught.
With no voter ID law, please explain, with detail, how you can confirm you are who you say you are. How you are an eligible voter? Please, and with detail.
 

tb233

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Dec 13, 2017
5,800
11,550
113
With no voter ID law, please explain, with detail, how you can confirm you are who you say you are. How you are an eligible voter? Please, and with detail.

I'd ne happy to, just as soon as you answer my question first.
 

Jaemekon

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Apr 23, 2007
5,248
5,007
113
Please explain in detail how you would vote twice without getting caught.

Person a and person b, go on the same day to two separate polling stations, where they both claim to be person a. And then they both vote under person a's account. That seems like a pretty easy thing to do.
 

tb233

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Dec 13, 2017
5,800
11,550
113
Person a and person b, go on the same day to two separate polling stations, where they both claim to be person a. And then they both vote under person a's account. That seems like a pretty easy thing to do.

I know you don't actually care and you're only here to argue but I'll bite lol. First of all, person a only gets to vote at their predetermined polling place. Second of all, people are only allowed to vote one time. One person can't just fill out multiple ballots as you're suggesting. So if person a has already voted and person b shows up to cast a ballot for person b, they would know right away. So for that to work person b pretty much just needs to know that person a won't be voting.

Now let's say for instance person b beat person a to person a's polling place and posed as person a. Person b still has to sign as person a, so they would have to know what person a's signature looks like and have perfected it beforehand.

So for person b to vote two times, once under their own name and once under person a's name. They have to: 1) Know who person a is voting for or if they're even planning on voting, otherwise all of their hard work is pointless, right? 2) know where person a's polling place is, not that difficult. 3) Make sure that that person a either isn't planning to vote at all or make sure they beat person a to the poll 4) Person b must be able to provide a perfect copy of person a's signature.

All of that for one vote. So in order to have an impact whatsoever on any election in any place, it would have to be a pretty massive amount of people all working in perfect unison with a lot of very intimate knowledge of the people they're pretending to be. Now if it seems reasonable to you or anyone reading this that it would happen on a large scale, say in the millions of votes, then you are seriously deranged.
 

biscuitbagger3

All-American
Gold Member
Aug 9, 2009
4,661
5,194
113
3) Make sure that that person a either isn't planning to vote at all or make sure they beat person a to the poll
Beating them to the poll doesn't help either. If I show up and they say I voted already I can dispute it and cast a provisional ballot. Then you can go to the election office the next day and prove you are you and your ballot will be counted and the first ballot discarded.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zar45

lolwat

Senior
Gold Member
Sep 8, 2016
2,617
4,697
113
I know you don't actually care and you're only here to argue but I'll bite lol. First of all, person a only gets to vote at their predetermined polling place. Second of all, people are only allowed to vote one time. One person can't just fill out multiple ballots as you're suggesting. So if person a has already voted and person b shows up to cast a ballot for person b, they would know right away. So for that to work person b pretty much just needs to know that person a won't be voting.

Now let's say for instance person b beat person a to person a's polling place and posed as person a. Person b still has to sign as person a, so they would have to know what person a's signature looks like and have perfected it beforehand.

So for person b to vote two times, once under their own name and once under person a's name. They have to: 1) Know who person a is voting for or if they're even planning on voting, otherwise all of their hard work is pointless, right? 2) know where person a's polling place is, not that difficult. 3) Make sure that that person a either isn't planning to vote at all or make sure they beat person a to the poll 4) Person b must be able to provide a perfect copy of person a's signature.

All of that for one vote. So in order to have an impact whatsoever on any election in any place, it would have to be a pretty massive amount of people all working in perfect unison with a lot of very intimate knowledge of the people they're pretending to be. Now if it seems reasonable to you or anyone reading this that it would happen on a large scale, say in the millions of votes, then you are seriously deranged.

And most of that stuff you mentioned regarding someone posing as another, is caught during the canvass and certification. Many of which who are trying to execute on the fraud are arrested.

You'd not only need those massive numbers, but you'd also need NONE of them to leak that they are doing it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevehammer

Jaemekon

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Apr 23, 2007
5,248
5,007
113
I know you don't actually care and you're only here to argue but I'll bite lol. First of all, person a only gets to vote at their predetermined polling place. Second of all, people are only allowed to vote one time. One person can't just fill out multiple ballots as you're suggesting. So if person a has already voted and person b shows up to cast a ballot for person b, they would know right away. So for that to work person b pretty much just needs to know that person a won't be voting.

Now let's say for instance person b beat person a to person a's polling place and posed as person a. Person b still has to sign as person a, so they would have to know what person a's signature looks like and have perfected it beforehand.

So for person b to vote two times, once under their own name and once under person a's name. They have to: 1) Know who person a is voting for or if they're even planning on voting, otherwise all of their hard work is pointless, right? 2) know where person a's polling place is, not that difficult. 3) Make sure that that person a either isn't planning to vote at all or make sure they beat person a to the poll 4) Person b must be able to provide a perfect copy of person a's signature.

All of that for one vote. So in order to have an impact whatsoever on any election in any place, it would have to be a pretty massive amount of people all working in perfect unison with a lot of very intimate knowledge of the people they're pretending to be. Now if it seems reasonable to you or anyone reading this that it would happen on a large scale, say in the millions of votes, then you are seriously deranged.

I'm sorry that I gave you the impression that I want to "argue", I don't know why you would assume that about me. Honestly, that is one of the biggest problems in humanity, a bunch of people assuming shit about others.

Anyway I think you misunderstood what I was saying. If you live in a town with more than one voting location, can you not walk in to two separate locations to vote, at the same time? Like person a goes over here and person b goes over there. Or does the government predetermine where you have cast your ballot? Which if that is the case, it seems like that is a deterrent to vote, because it limits voting options.

In my example person a and person b are working together to get person a, two votes. Not one taking from the other, and if they are working together, can they not work on a signature that is easy to master? And when you go to vote is it an electronic system that then blocks off any future attempt at a vote from person a's account? And if they go at the same time, would it be caught?

I'm not concerned about a massive whatever with bunches of votes. I was just trying to answer the question of is it possible to get more than one vote for a single person, that's all I thought this was.

I'm not here to argue, just here to continue the conversation of hypothetical scenarios.

babadook.jpg
 

tb233

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Dec 13, 2017
5,800
11,550
113
I'm sorry that I gave you the impression that I want to "argue", I don't know why you would assume that about me. Honestly, that is one of the biggest problems in humanity, a bunch of people assuming shit about others.

Anyway I think you misunderstood what I was saying. If you live in a town with more than one voting location, can you not walk in to two separate locations to vote, at the same time? Like person a goes over here and person b goes over there. Or does the government predetermine where you have cast your ballot? Which if that is the case, it seems like that is a deterrent to vote, because it limits voting options.

In my example person a and person b are working together to get person a, two votes. Not one taking from the other, and if they are working together, can they not work on a signature that is easy to master? And when you go to vote is it an electronic system that then blocks off any future attempt at a vote from person a's account? And if they go at the same time, would it be caught?

I'm not concerned about a massive whatever with bunches of votes. I was just trying to answer the question of is it possible to get more than one vote for a single person, that's all I thought this was.

I'm not here to argue, just here to continue the conversation of hypothetical scenarios.

babadook.jpg

My bad, by argue I didn't mean I thought you were doing anything cynical, more like you were asking from the vein of 'for argument's sake, say this happened.' Apologies for coming across as a dick. But to answer your overarching question, no. One person - one vote. It would be caught immediately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaemekon

Jaemekon

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Apr 23, 2007
5,248
5,007
113
My bad, by argue I didn't mean I thought you were doing anything cynical, more like you were asking from the vein of 'for argument's sake, say this happened.' Apologies for coming across as a dick. But to answer your overarching question, no. One person - one vote. It would be caught immediately.

Is there a database that stores who has voted, when that person votes? I honestly don't know. It just seemed like it would be easy to game the system if there wasn't a database storing who has voted when the votes are submitted.

Like is there a person at the voting place that takes your name and social security number to input in the database, or how does it work? How do they know?

Sorry if you just wanted to be done with the conversation, you seem to have some answers, so that's why I'm asking.
 

biscuitbagger3

All-American
Gold Member
Aug 9, 2009
4,661
5,194
113
Is there a database that stores who has voted, when that person votes? I honestly don't know. It just seemed like it would be easy to game the system if there wasn't a database storing who has voted when the votes are submitted.

Like is there a person at the voting place that takes your name and social security number to input in the database, or how does it work? How do they know?

Sorry if you just wanted to be done with the conversation, you seem to have some answers, so that's why I'm asking.
Old school they had a list of registered voters for each polling place and would mark you as voted. New school is districts do it digitally.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zar45 and Jaemekon

Jaemekon

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Apr 23, 2007
5,248
5,007
113
Old school they had a list of registered voters for each polling place and would mark you as voted. New school is districts do it digitally.

Ok, so you don't just vote wherever you live? You have to register to vote with polling locations?

Jesus, seems like a bit of a hassle, but what else is the government good for than to make life more difficult.

As you can tell, I have never voted. Thank you for your response.
 

tb233

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Dec 13, 2017
5,800
11,550
113
Ok, so you don't just vote wherever you live? You have to register to vote with polling locations?

Jesus, seems like a bit of a hassle, but what else is the government good for than to make life more difficult.

As you can tell, I have never voted. Thank you for your response.

They break cities/towns/etc up geographically. So like your next door neighbor votes at the same place you do but the guy across town votes somewhere else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaemekon

stevehammer

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Sep 18, 2001
5,719
6,065
113
it was like a rigged football game. NU vs. A&M w/ Bo. F'n rigged, and just because the 'officials' said it wasn't, it doesn't change the optics, doesn't change how incredibly wrong it felt. And it has nothing, NOTHING to do with Trump, as said a billion times I'm glad he's gone and hope he doesn't resurface, but what happened was 'statistically improbable if not impossible' based on nerd-science... now I didn't like the Muslim. At all, he was a socialist in Sheep's Clothing that gave people 'a shrill up their leg' and LibBoners all over the country, but the guy won. Hands down, he won because he was a smooth talker promising a lot of free shit, and the GOP sent up absolute pansies to compete with him, but THIS last election just had a whole new dimension of conspiracy. The chances of thousands of ppl with detailed, consistent eyewitness accounts of the goings-on inside polling stations is just too much to brush over, and WAAAAYYYY more likely than the 'Russia stole the election' troll that went on for four years. Don't care what a bunch of lawyers decided what was right, because they're usually f'ing wrong. What the MSM has been pining on since January should tell you all you need to know... that shit was f'd up.
Man, you need to learn how to write. This is nearly incomprehensible.
Is there a database that stores who has voted, when that person votes? I honestly don't know. It just seemed like it would be easy to game the system if there wasn't a database storing who has voted when the votes are submitted.

Like is there a person at the voting place that takes your name and social security number to input in the database, or how does it work? How do they know?

Sorry if you just wanted to be done with the conversation, you seem to have some answers, so that's why I'm asking.
No offense, but if you've never voted and know nothing about voting, you should just bow out of the conversation. You're making all kinds of assumptions about how easy it would be to game the system when none of your assumptions are accurate.

This is a huge problem in our society. So many people think they can talk on subjects about which they don't know shit. This is particularly important with regard to science and medicine. People "do their research" on line and believe the slick garbage they see on Youtube and don't have the background to understand what the hell they are talking about.

Read up on the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I"m sure you're an expert in something. Stick to whatever you're actually an expert at. I'm a scientist and engineer, I understand science. I"m a government/political junkie. I am a photographer/videographer. I know a lot about those subjects. But I don't understand many many things. Agriculture, taxes, accounting, cryptocurrency, computer programming, website design, running a business, etc. I can go on and on about all of the things that I don't understand. And the problem we have in this country is that so many people don't realize when they don't know shit about something.
 

Jaemekon

Graduate Assistant
Gold Member
Apr 23, 2007
5,248
5,007
113
Man, you need to learn how to write. This is nearly incomprehensible.

No offense, but if you've never voted and know nothing about voting, you should just bow out of the conversation. You're making all kinds of assumptions about how easy it would be to game the system when none of your assumptions are accurate.

This is a huge problem in our society. So many people think they can talk on subjects about which they don't know shit. This is particularly important with regard to science and medicine. People "do their research" on line and believe the slick garbage they see on Youtube and don't have the background to understand what the hell they are talking about.

Read up on the Dunning-Kruger effect.

I"m sure you're an expert in something. Stick to whatever you're actually an expert at. I'm a scientist and engineer, I understand science. I"m a government/political junkie. I am a photographer/videographer. I know a lot about those subjects. But I don't understand many many things. Agriculture, taxes, accounting, cryptocurrency, computer programming, website design, running a business, etc. I can go on and on about all of the things that I don't understand. And the problem we have in this country is that so many people don't realize when they don't know shit about something.

I admitted that I didn't know. So what are you talking about? A whole lot of preaching man, I'm not out here pretending. I responded to keep shit moving, and I even acknowledged my own ignorance on the subject. Government policies can be circumvented, and I assumed the voting process was equally as susceptible.

Now....

AbleFickleFirecrest-max-1mb.gif
 

tobermeyer24

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Gold Member
May 30, 2015
17,680
57,716
113
Is there a database that stores who has voted, when that person votes? I honestly don't know. It just seemed like it would be easy to game the system if there wasn't a database storing who has voted when the votes are submitted.

Like is there a person at the voting place that takes your name and social security number to input in the database, or how does it work? How do they know?

Sorry if you just wanted to be done with the conversation, you seem to have some answers, so that's why I'm asking.
States keep voter files where you can find individual turnout going back years. You can buy them in places with a couple thousand bucks
 
  • Like
Reactions: zar45 and Jaemekon

lolwat

Senior
Gold Member
Sep 8, 2016
2,617
4,697
113
Ok, so you don't just vote wherever you live? You have to register to vote with polling locations?

Jesus, seems like a bit of a hassle, but what else is the government good for than to make life more difficult.

As you can tell, I have never voted. Thank you for your response.

The fun part is, if you think that sucks.. the R's are trying to make it suck even more in places like Georgia, Texas, and others. Cutting back polling places, drop boxes, days of early voting, voter ID laws, etc all aimed at trying to make turnout hard. Because usually, when there is turn out, they lose. They have also lost the popular vote like 6 of the last 7 elections.. which of course we use the electoral college.. but.. it can't be good sign for them long term. I think it was one of the Carolina's that lost a case or two in court with what they were trying to do to suppress turnout.

They brand anything that makes voting easier something clearly just a mass increase in fraud because apparently easier = fraudulent. Ultimately they are deathly afraid of the John Lewis voting rights act passing, because they fear they may never win again. Not because fraud but because turnout with voting being made easier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zar45 and Jaemekon