"If you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally."
Just under one hundred and thirty-two million votes were cast altogether, of which about one hundred and twenty-six million were cast for either the Democratic or the Republican candidate. For "millionS" of those votes to have been cast by "illegal" voters, we're talking about a pretty massive operation.
There are about two hundred and forty-three million adults in the United States. Of those approximately two hundred and nineteen million are eligible to vote. Of those two hundred and nineteen million, about one hundred and forty-six million actually registered to vote by the deadline(s) for the 2016 election.
So, of the 97 million adults (let's assume we didn't have a mass epidemic of children voting) technically barred (for any reason) from voting, more than two percent of them decided to break the law and vote anyway.
An interesting fact: There were eight hundred and sixty-eight fewer polling places in 2016 than there were in 2012.
And one final interesting fact: There were slightly fewer "advance ballots" (early or absentee) ballots cast in 2016 than in 2012 (1.78 million versus 1.86 million.)
Even with 868 or so fewer polling places in the US, there are many places that one hundred and thirty million people can vote- one 2004 estimate identified nearly 186,000.
Sounds like a lot, until you realize that with 132,000,000 people voting, that's a little over 700 per polling place. (ALL these numbers are approximate... records at the precinct level are terrible.)
To vote, a voter needs to 'check in' with a poll attendant, to verify they are registered and (in many places) voting in the correct location. They need to go to a vote-casting accommodation- usually a stand with a privacy shield or a booth, and read and complete the ballot using a finger, stylus, pen or other tool. They need to submit the completed ballot, and leave. This process, depending on the details, can take anywhere from three to ten minutes, but let's pick an average of five minutes.
But that's an ideal. The reality is that it's much slower. Names on checklists are misspelled, people get into the wrong check-in lines, even show up at wrong precincts. They need help from poll attendants to understand how to use the equipment. Some read every word of a ballot with dozens of initiatives on it, a paragraph of explanation for each, for the first time while they're standing there.
Getting seven hundred people through a polling place in the 10-14 or so hours most polling places are open can be quite the challenge. Those lines look LONG. It seems chaotic, sometimes.
But we're still talking about an average of only a few hundred people per polling place. Yes, there are city precincts that collect a couple thousand votes, and tiny places like Dixville Notch that collect only a few. Even so, if you want "millions" of people to vote illegally, you're looking at some amazing logistics. How many poll volunteers need to be corrupted and/or paid off to break the law? How many voters at their familiar polling places need to ignore the presence of dozens, maybe hundreds, of strangers voting with them?
I'm not saying it's impossible for vote fraud to be committed. Quite the contrary. Without voter-verified paper ballots processed via a carefully monitored chain of custody throughout, we know full well that thousands of votes are questionable in every election. Mechanical failure, hacking, and chicanery are more than credible explanations.
But "vote fraud" is a very different phenomenon than "votER fraud." For "millions of people" to "vote illegally" we're talking voter fraud on a logistical scale that would require black helicopters and the involvement of thousands of primary actors, plus the knowing connivance of thousands more and the willing inattention of tens, maybe hundreds of thousands.
In the reality-based world, it didn't happen.
But it's a cool distraction from the actual VOTE FRAUD that probably did happen. Which requires only a few dozen primary actors, maybe the connivance of a few hundred more. Which requires little or no logistical exposure, using existing technology. And which may well be discoverable, if a real effort is made to look for it.
So, sending their faithful lackies in the anything-but-liberal media off to look for those millions of fraudulent voters is the best the can do, I guess.
It might work.
wearily,
Bright
= new reply since forum marked as read
