[EL] Accepting the results of the election

[JBoppjr at aol.com]

Regarding your questions of me:
 
(1) First, as I have pointed out, liberals and Democrats have refused to  
accept the results of the 2000 election and no liberal or Democrat, or anyone 
 one in the media that I know of, have been "horrified" or considered that 
a  dire threat to Democracy.  You say that that refusal is justified and I  
understand that that is the position of the left.  But it would have been  
absurd to expect that Gore must accept the results of the election, without  
doing a recount in Florida, just as it is absurd to expect Trump to agree to 
do  this either.  Yes I do think there is a gross double standard at play  
here.
 
By the way, here are a few more elections where Democrats refuse to  accept 
the results of.
 
 
_Click  here: 8 Times Liberals Claimed An Election Was Stolen Or Rigged_ 
(http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/19/8-times-liberals-claimed-election-stolen-r
igged/)  
 
(2) Yes, I agree with your point that voter fraud can be committed without  
registration fraud.  But one way to commit voter fraud is to commit  
registration fraud first.  What you do is register a fictitious person and  then 
vote them either at the polls or by absentee ballot.  A voter ID  requirement 
can stand in the way of voting the fraudulent registration by  someone 
showing up at the polling place but this does not prevent voting by  absentee. 
So in this instance, the fraudulent registration is the precursor to  the 
voter fraud.  
 
And whether there is evidence of recent rigging or stealing of elections,  
you could start with all the Democrats and liberals who claim there is, in 
the  link above. 
 
For my part, it is uncontestable that there has been vote fraud in our  
country that has effected the outcome of elections, including possibly  the 
Presidency (see Nixon loss in 1960 as a result of vote fraud in  Illinois).  I 
have done a number of recounts where there was vote  fraud that effected the 
election and the people involved were prosecuted. I  do think that our 
election laws have significantly reduced the incidents of  this but the 
concerted attack on these fraud prevention laws raises the specter  the historic 
voter fraud will raise its ugly head again.  So, unlike the  Democrats, I want 
to continue with these fraud prevention measures.
 
Obviously, you and others have set the bar much higher by demanding  
evidence right now of voter fraud that is actually occurring today.  Well,  little 
voting is occurring yet and, if voter fraud occurs, it can  effect an 
election and there is no going back.  So I support  reasonable fraud prevention 
measures to prevent that from happening. I  believe that advanced 
registration and voter ID requirements, among others, are  in that category. Jim Bopp

 
 
In a message dated 10/20/2016 9:33:15 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
kogan.18 at osu.edu writes:

 
Jim, 
As  others have already pointed out, it seems strange to draw some sort of  
comparison between Democratic complaints about the 2000 election and Trump’
s  claims that the election is “rigged” via voter fraud. If your standard 
for  judging the fairness of election outcome is whether the winner of the 
vote  count is the person most voters intended to support, than there is 
_clear  evidence_ (http://www.academia.edu/download/44616369/butterfly.pdf)  that 
Gore should have actually won and lost only because the poor  ballot design 
in Palm Beach County. By contrast, there has _no  evidence_ 
(http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/elj.2013.0231)  that there is voter fraud on 
a scale anywhere approaching what  would be needed to have altered the 
outcome of any (recent) presidential  election. To claim that one set of concerns 
(backed up by empirical evidence)  and the other (backed up by conspiracy 
theories and innuendo) are somehow  comparable seems pretty disingenuous. 
I  can’t speak for others, but what I found equally problematic is your 
claim  that “thousands of instances of voter registration fraud in 56 of our 92 
 counties that is obviously a precursor to massive voter fraud”  (emphasis 
added). If by obviously a precursor, you meant that logically  registration 
fraud must chronologically precede voter fraud (which you later  implied was 
what you meant), that is simply inaccurate. There could be voter  fraud 
without registration fraud (e.g., an employee at a nursing home takes  the a
bsentee ballots of the legally registered seniors citizens who live there  and 
fills them out without their permission). If you meant that massive voter  
fraud always happens when there registration fraud as an empirical matter,  
which was how I originally interpreted your statement, than that is also not  
true, for the reasons that Rick laid out earlier. 
Vlad  Kogan 
 
 
 
 








-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20161020/9c980898/attachment.html>