Voted In America? VoteRef Probably Doxed You (404media.co) 210
An anonymous reader quotes a report from 404 Media: If you voted in the U.S. presidential election yesterday in which Donald Trump won comfortably, or a previous election, a website powered by a right-wing group is probably doxing you. VoteRef makes it trivial for anyone to search the name, physical address, age, party affiliation, and whether someone voted that year for people living in most states instantly and for free. This can include ordinary citizens, celebrities, domestic abuse survivors, and many other people. Voting rolls are public records, and ways to more readily access them are not new. But during a time of intense division, political violence, or even the broader threat of data being used to dox or harass anyone, sites like VoteRef turn a vital part of the democratic process -- simply voting -- into a security and privacy threat. [...]
The Voter Reference Foundation, which runs VoteRef, is a right wing organization helmed by a former Trump campaign official, ProPublica previously reported. The goal for that organization was to find irregularities in the number of voters and the number of ballots cast, but state election officials said their findings were "fundamentally incorrect," ProPublica added. In an interview with NPR, the ProPublica reporter said that the Voter Reference Foundation insinuated (falsely) that the 2020 election of Joe Biden was fraudulent in some way. 404 Media has found people on social media using VoteRef's data to spread voting conspiracies too. VoteRef has steadily been adding more states' records to the VoteRef website. At the time of writing, it has records for all states that legally allow publication. Some exceptions include California, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. ProPublica reported that VoteRef removed the Pennsylvania data after being contacted by an attorney for Pennsylvania's Department of State. "Digitizing and aggregating data meaningfully changes the privacy context and the risks to people. Your municipal government storing your marriage certificate and voter information in some basement office filing cabinet is not even remotely the same as a private company digitizing all the data, labeling it, piling it all together, making it searchable," said Justin Sherman, a Duke professor who studies data brokers.
"Policymakers need to get with the times and recognize that data brokers digitizing, aggregating, and selling data based on public records -- which are usually considered 'publicly available information' and exempted from privacy laws -- has fueled decades of stalking and gendered violence, harassment, doxing, and even murder," Sherman said. "Protecting citizens of all political stripes, targets and survivors of gendered violence, public servants who are targets for doxing and death threats, military service members, and everyone in between depends on reframing how we think about public records privacy and the mass aggregation and sale of our data."
The Voter Reference Foundation, which runs VoteRef, is a right wing organization helmed by a former Trump campaign official, ProPublica previously reported. The goal for that organization was to find irregularities in the number of voters and the number of ballots cast, but state election officials said their findings were "fundamentally incorrect," ProPublica added. In an interview with NPR, the ProPublica reporter said that the Voter Reference Foundation insinuated (falsely) that the 2020 election of Joe Biden was fraudulent in some way. 404 Media has found people on social media using VoteRef's data to spread voting conspiracies too. VoteRef has steadily been adding more states' records to the VoteRef website. At the time of writing, it has records for all states that legally allow publication. Some exceptions include California, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. ProPublica reported that VoteRef removed the Pennsylvania data after being contacted by an attorney for Pennsylvania's Department of State. "Digitizing and aggregating data meaningfully changes the privacy context and the risks to people. Your municipal government storing your marriage certificate and voter information in some basement office filing cabinet is not even remotely the same as a private company digitizing all the data, labeling it, piling it all together, making it searchable," said Justin Sherman, a Duke professor who studies data brokers.
"Policymakers need to get with the times and recognize that data brokers digitizing, aggregating, and selling data based on public records -- which are usually considered 'publicly available information' and exempted from privacy laws -- has fueled decades of stalking and gendered violence, harassment, doxing, and even murder," Sherman said. "Protecting citizens of all political stripes, targets and survivors of gendered violence, public servants who are targets for doxing and death threats, military service members, and everyone in between depends on reframing how we think about public records privacy and the mass aggregation and sale of our data."
aggregating data (Score:2)
Re: aggregating data (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: aggregating data (Score:5, Insightful)
An amendment could change that.
Unfortunately, Congress has little will to act to protect the people most vulnerable, so enabling legislation is likely to be weak, or slanted to favor the oligarchs.
Re: aggregating data (Score:2)
Re: aggregating data (Score:4, Interesting)
"Motor voter" [wikipedia.org] is a federal law, passed under Congress's constitutional authority to regulate the elections of Senators and Representatives. Six states are exempt, but the other 44 must comply with it.
When you say "some States went full-in for 'motor voter' registrations", what do you mean?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
To be clear, the people complaining the loudest about 'securing our borders' are really only complaining about the Southern Border, which is only a problem for four states, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California.
I hear no one complaining about securing our Northern Border. Other than the Border Patrol/DHS/other Federal Agencies.
Yes
Re:aggregating data (Score:5, Insightful)
hm.. My thinking is "aggregating" data offline in reasonable amounts should be fine.
However your voter registration details ought not be public. Public records should be information about government operations NOT citizens' personal details.
In addition public records should NOT mean that private corporations are allowed to conduct mass aggregation. I will give an example: land ownership records. They are and should be public records, but retrieving and saving copies of the records en mass for properties that you are not connected with and have no specific business with ought to be illegal.
Finally; the largest issue is placing it online on servers connected to the internet in a manner that makes personally-identifiable info on people searchable by others Or opens the possibility to exposure in a data breach.
I would honestly say this concept of a "data broker" who collects and resells information to members of the public indiscriminately or for trivial purposes such as marketing should be Illegal.
Re: (Score:3)
hm.. My thinking is "aggregating" data offline in reasonable amounts should be fine.
However your voter registration details ought not be public. Public records should be information about government operations NOT citizens' personal details.
I'd like to see the same thinking applied to all records about an individual, including personal addresses used for registering a business or nonprofit, DBAs, etc. The government should have them, but they should not be considered public records that can be obtained except in conjunction with a court order, because the alternative is just inviting harassment.
Speaking of which,
Re: (Score:3)
Speaking of which,
Sorry, didn't finish that. Speaking of which, I wonder if any of these organizations have any "public records" that might be interesting to the public.
Re: aggregating data (Score:3)
If this were actually a big deal, there's a simple solution: form your entity in Delaware. Ain't nobody idly paying the fees those guys demand for basic information.
Re: (Score:2)
The states maintain business records so that, among other things, lawsuits can be properly served.
This is a good reason to require registration but Not a good reason for the records to be publicly available with no privacy protections for private organizations.
I would say the solution is they should have the registry but control access strictly. An entity wishing to get registration details of a private business should have to submit a formal application listing the businesses whose records they are l
Re: (Score:2)
Business records should not be private, as a (potential) customer of any business you want to know who you're dealing with.
Privacy rules should only extend to personal records.
If the data is available there will always be those who seek to aggregate it, and even if you make it troublesome to obtain one record someone will work out how to automate that and retrieve them all.
Re: (Score:2)
You've heard of the white pages, right?
Re: (Score:2)
I am not optimistic any of these things will happen in the coming Trump administration - there's too much money to be made on private data and too much power in being able to intimidate people who are registered to vote in a way that you don't want
Re: (Score:2)
Land records must be public as long as there are property taxes to challenge - need to know the comparables for the county protest form.
The purpose of the land records is not to help people with that; it's to help the government enforce the laws and establish the owner of properties. You also don't need to know who owns all the properties to find comparables - The land map - a list of plots and access to the valuations and assessment amounts would be all you need.
may consider starting smaller, like
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The article is also misleading, since every other voter related organization and every company that cared to access this information already had it. Which means all the scammers had it as well from those sources either from hacks or from them outright selling it bundled up nice and neat. The only difference here is that the general public now has access to the same information.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
"We found this case from 16th century England that establishes privacy is not protected. Also constitutional amendments don't fit with what the founding fathers wanted or they would have just written it that way to begin with so they don't count"
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As written, the 1st only limited the Federal government to legislate speech restrictions and the States were free to pass laws restricting speech, at least those States who did not have something similar in their Constitutions. Arms also used to be much more regulated at the State and local levels. It was the 14th that fully expanded the Bill of Rights to the States.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Weird that the Trump campaign didn't file any lawsuits about those 10 million voters back in 2020.
Oh, wait, were those the ones that were all thrown out for being completely unsubstantiated?
Terms of service (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Terms of service (Score:5, Interesting)
I tried to read their terms of service but to do so I get a prompt to agree to the terms of service. I can't read them if I don't agree first \_()_/
Pretty sure that renders any agreement inherently null and void. Personally, I'd create a screen recording of that fact, followed by me clicking it, and then try to find as many creative ways to violate it as I could, just for the entertainment value of seeing their lawyers' faces when I sent them that video in response to any complaints, but that's just me. :-D
Re: (Score:2)
Just wondering... Are you employed, like with a job?
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure that renders any agreement inherently null and void. Personally, I'd create a screen recording of that fact, followed by me clicking it, and then try to find as many creative ways to violate it as I could, just for the entertainment value of seeing their lawyers' faces when I sent them that video in response to any complaints, but that's just me. :-D
Just wondering... Are you employed, like with a job?
Yeah, and no, it's not as a lawyer. But I do recall from the law-related classes I have taken over the years that a contract requires a meeting of the minds, and it is therefore fundamentally impossible to form a contract if one side of the contract is prohibited from reading it by the other side, because no such meeting of the minds can possibly occur without some reasonable awareness of what you're agreeing to.
Ergo, if you could show that it appears to be impossible to actually read the terms of service
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Funniest of the jokes on the mixed target. Obviously lots of room for humor, but not really such a funny story...
Confused (Score:4, Funny)
Does anyone know why VoteRef doxxed me 107 times? Do they perform a separate doxing operation for each vote I cast this year?
Re: Confused (Score:2)
That's not what doxing means (Score:5, Insightful)
This site doesn't have me, but if it did, so what? If you've made any political contributions, you can look that up at various sites, but since they're either left-wing or apparently bipartisan (OpenSecrets), nobody bats an eye.
If they somehow linked my pseudonymous slashdot handle with my name, THAT would be doxing. (Except my slashdot handle isn't pseudonymous anyway)
It's for better security (Score:5, Insightful)
This site doesn't have me, but if it did, so what? If you've made any political contributions, you can look that up at various sites, but since they're either left-wing or apparently bipartisan (OpenSecrets), nobody bats an eye.
If they somehow linked my pseudonymous slashdot handle with my name, THAT would be doxing. (Except my slashdot handle isn't pseudonymous anyway)
Suppose I didn't vote, but VoteRef shows that I did. That indicates voting fraud, someone entered an absentee vote in my name.
Suppose the lot across from me is vacant, and VoteRef shows that several people registered and voted using that address.
VoteRef is useful for identifying and combatting voter fraud. Lots and lots of theories on how vote fraud could occur, having the data open and available for everyone can lower the temperature, and reassure people that the voting process is secure.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In some nice world that we don't live in, that could be true. In the world we actually live in, that is not at all what is happening. They are not some nice website that is out there to help reassure people the voting process is secure. They have made insinuations that the 2020 election was stolen (it wasn't). They have taken normal discrepancies and used them to imply fraud is occurring (it isn't on any meaningful level). They have raised the temperature not lowered it, and that is their goal.
Re: (Score:2)
And how do you know these claims are false? Because you and others have access to the data and can prove or disprove the claims being made.
If there are signs of fraud or discrepancies they should not be ignored, in case they are symptoms of a serious problem. If they're investigated and turn out to be trivial matters then that's fine, what matters is that the investigation takes place openly and transparently so that people can have faith in the process and results.
People are always going to make false clai
Glad to know only right wing groups collect data (Score:5, Insightful)
Because left wing groups and companies fully respect your privacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I had a 6 month long real time conversation with a gf back in the day entirely in Haiku.
I'm sure you're a better poet, however. Because reasons. Good ones. Such as, you don't like me. You win!
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not a poet. I just thought what I happened to write sounded pretty cool.
Re: (Score:2)
Glad I read to the end of the thread before responding to that jackass. Of course, it might actually be funny if a bunch of us responded basically the same way you did. I have no doubt he'd be a one-man population explosion if his hand could get pregnant.
Re: Glad to know only right wing groups collect da (Score:3)
Re: Glad to know only right wing groups collect d (Score:2)
I'm not sure why you keep waffling about zombies. Is it possible you don't understand how to look up figures on the Internet?
I hope you didn't look yourself up on them. (Score:5, Funny)
Oof, another 404media sensationalist story. (Score:2)
Fear Mongering BS (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just so.
Um, why is this a surprise? (Score:3)
Traditionally, things like driver's license info and voter registration info is either just another public record which is accessible to everybody, or in some places it's sort of a quasi-public record.
In places like Florida, for instance, driver's license data is a public record anybody can get, which makes it easier for you to have your lawyer track somebody down and serve papers on them [if needed] after something like an accident. In California, driver's license data used to be a public record, but the laws were changed after a stalker used that data to track down a young actress and murder her; now you must make a special application [and pay a fee, IIRC] to get such records from the CA DMV. In other words, they're still sort of public records, but access is controlled enough that the state can be on the lookout for stalkers and such trying to use it, and the hurdles are high enough to discourage the non-serious from bothering.
Most places do not make voter data directly available to any clown who wants it, but all government agencies, political candidates, and political orgs can get it [so they can do their mass-mailings, get-out-the-vote activities, etc] as can academics, journalists, and even businesses [but I think these entities need to go through an application process in most areas]. The trick is, the politicians can ALWAYS be counted upon to act in their self-interest... so the laws governing this stuff always seem to have a particular loophole: no matter how restrictive initial access to these databases is, there's rarely any control on what an entity that obtains the data does with it - including a lack of restrictions on them forwarding it to other entities.
Justin Sherman has insight (Score:2)
Fascist US (Score:2)
Correction: Changes the risk of stalking, to people.
After the fascist US government has eliminated; reproductive rights, employee's rights, education, healthcare subsidies (medi-care/medi-aid), and possibly, pensions, the next step is eliminating politicians who criticize press releases from the Ministry of Truth.
A fascist/totalitarian government may turn a blind eye to the assault or murder of 'non-persons' (Eg. Homosexual men in Russia.) but it's the dissenters or not 'normal' people in government, t
Re: (Score:2)
Delusional
Publicly availalbe infdormation... (Score:2)
..is publicly available - why is this news?
If you have an address, then somebody needs to know it in order for you to exist ... it's not Doxxing...
Re: (Score:2)
> search for [...] party affiliation, and whether someone voted that year
There's a reason why voting happens behind a screen. And whether a person voted or not absolutely should be protected the same way.
Virginia does share voter data (Score:2)
In Virginia, the political parties and candidates may purchase voting records for a nominal fee. We also allow them to observe elections and we ask the voters to state their name and address when they check in. (A voter can request to write that info down instead of saying it out loud.) This is an important part of securing the process. No secret voters, just secret ballots.
Re: (Score:2)
>"In Virginia [...]we ask the voters to state their name and address when they check in.[...] This is an important part of securing the process."
Voters are also required to show a government ID, which is equally important. And ballots are paper and fed into a counting machine (and then captured/retained for auditing) by the voter.
The process is quite comprehensive, logical, and good. Do note, this is a reversion back to what USED to be the norm- VA switched to all those touchscreen things that everybod
Blocked (Score:2)
I'm blocked from the site. Presumably because I'm coming from a Canadian IP address.
I guess they have nothing to hide.
Let's just call it what it is (Score:2)
This is the creation of the list of Enemies of the State.
I imagine that this list will be distributed to local "militias" if the regular military is unwilling to act.
As always, I invite any evidence to the contrary
Re: (Score:2)
>"As always, I invite any evidence to the contrary"
I think we invite you to provide evidence of your crazy assertions, first.
Re: (Score:3)
like it's a bad thing (Score:2)
"...digitizing, aggregating, and selling data based on public records -- which are usually considered 'publicly available information' and exempted from privacy laws -- has fueled decades of stalking and gendered violence, harassment, doxing, and even murder,"
He says that like it's a bad thing! -RightwingNutjob
Re: (Score:2)
Sooo, you want to make it easy for the maniac because it is his fault anyways? Are you serious? Do you also think stakers should have it easy? Or identity-thieves?
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I follow the reasoning at least partially, even if I do not agree to it. The problem with it is that a) the number of degenerates is not that small and b) doing something about the problem _before_ they harm somebody requires either making it hard for them by making obtaining the information hard or basically a totalitarian surveillance society.
Incidentally, names and addresses are protected in Europe under the GDPR and, so far I fail to see "a whole lot of problems". What specific problems do you see r
Re: (Score:3)
It's the chilling effect on democracy that's the objective of this. You know, when someone threatens you by saying, "We know where you live." Extremists will use this to persecute anyone who doesn't agree with them &/or does look or live the way they
Re: like it's a bad thing (Score:2)
Good thing we have the second amendment here. Even in Liberal Massachusetts, enough of the ducks can shoot back that it should deter the duck hunters.
Re: (Score:2)
Or does it have the opposite effect...
Knowing that the potential victim is in possession of a gun might deter someone?
Re: (Score:2)
Now do abortion doctors.
Re: Seems okay when left-leaning newspapers do it? (Score:4, Funny)
I need to check my calendar, and dig through my emails, but I'm pretty sure I didn't go on any murderous rampages today, yesterday, or last week.
Re: Seems okay when left-leaning newspapers do it? (Score:2)
The people's republic of Massachusetts, California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois....
Even Pennsylvania and Texas will make you get a permit before you get to carry in public.
Back before Bruen, I had a "target shooting only" restriction on my Massachusetts LTC. And as we all know, it is only those words printed on my license that prevented me from going on those rampages you read so much about. After Bruen, my renewed license carries no such restrictions. I guess we're all a little bit less safe now that th
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I'd define a shithole as "somewhere so lawless that you have to pack heat everywhere you go in order to feel safe". The state I live in (Florida) passed a constitutional carry law not too long ago and you know what? I still keep my gun, properly secured, at home.
To be completely honest, the 2A is a little ambiguous on whether it actually grants the right to walk around town with an arsenal in your trousers.
Re: (Score:2)
To be completely honest, the 2A is a little ambiguous on whether it actually grants the right to walk around town with an arsenal in your trousers.
Is it? As an originalist, like so many of the esteemed Justices of the Supreme Court, I hold that the common man of the 1700s would see very little relation between the muskets of the day and the semi-automatic weapons that are prevalent now. By that authentic, originalist reading, modern guns are surely not constitutionally protected!
/s
Re: (Score:2)
I hold that the common man of the 1700s would see very little relation between the muskets of the day and the semi-automatic weapons that are prevalent now.
Not really. Repeating rifles and muskets existed well before then. They just costed a year or two of the time of a master craftsman to create. So the common man couldn't afford one and wasn't likely to see many around.
What you are arguing against is mass production. If that's the case and you want a Prius, you'd better get down to the local carriage shop and have the blacksmith start working on yours.
Re: (Score:2)
What you are arguing against is mass production.
What I'm arguing against is easy access to guns that can kill people en masse. I don't really care whether they're mass produced, but I suppose by my (sarcastic) originalist argument you might come to the conclusion that an AR15 should be restricted but not something made at great expense by a master craftsman.
Re: (Score:2)
What I'm arguing against is easy access to guns that can kill people en masse.
Too late. Open bolt fully automatic weapons are trivially easy to make. Even in a moderately well equipped home hobby shop. Much more easily made than an AR15. Which is nothing more than a basic rifle, except that it's black, adopted plastic rather than wood furniture and typically has optics mounting rails. If you can explain why a black plastic stock is more dangerous than a hand-carved mahogany one, I'm all ears.
Re: (Score:2)
the 2A is a little ambiguous on whether it actually grants the right to walk around town with an arsenal in your trousers.
Not really. It says "keep and bear Arms".
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. It says "keep and bear Arms".
The idea of the 2A was that the citizens should be armed so they can defend their country if called upon to do so. These days, it's extremely unlikely that the British are going to invade while you're out getting a coffee at Starbucks.
The 2A has been reinterpreted to the point it barely resembles its original intent by conservative judges who are beholden to the gun lobby. Even with the current interpretation of the 2A, you still can't realistically tote a gun around everywhere anyway, because most privat
Re: (Score:2)
>> What kind of fascist shithole do you live in that insists you obtain a permit
Earth.
All countries require permit, except USA.
Re: (Score:2)
handgun permit holders
What kind of fascist shithole do you live in that insists you obtain a permit to exercise a constitutional right?
The first part of that right is "A well-regulated militia being necessary" - the 3rd word is where you get permits. Although the common meaning of the phrase seems lost in 21st century American English, it was well established in meaning when it was written.
Are you allowed to own a tank? What about a fighter plane? How about a nuclear bomb? These things are regulated. How / by whom? The government regulates these things. If you are in the military and are training to be a tank driver, you get a license to o
Re: (Score:2)
What good is a militia if the members cannot have guns.
This.
States are expected to form militias (which include police departments, highway patrols, park rangers, dog catchers) from members of the general public. And since states are prohibited from arming militias (Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution), the only way cops can carry guns is if they can bring them as private citizens. And that includes no indirect "arming" by making possession conditional on joining a militia.
In answer to the tank and fighter plane question, if my state expects cops to u
Re: (Score:2)
It's perfectly fine if I get doxxed by a left wing group, I guess...
America doesn't have left wing groups.
Your politics are right wing, and extreme right wing.
If you actually had left wing representation, you might have a properly working healthcare system etc...
Re: (Score:3)
Oh someone didn't like that so here's the facts. Reagan took away open carry rights as governor of California because scary black people were exercising their second amendment rights. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Imagine if a republican called for doing away with open carry in 2024.
https://www.npr.org/2010/07/04... [npr.org]
Imagine if a republican called for amnesty for people in the country illegally in 2024.
Re: (Score:2)
Point is, for this discussion their political alignment is immeterial. I don't particularly like getting doxxed by either side - not by the left, and also not by the folks who were dumb enough to believe that migrants-are-eating-your-pets garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
not by the folks who were dumb enough to believe that migrants-are-eating-your-pets garbage.
The right really needs to put out a handy-dandy guide out which clarifies which issues are just absurd outlandish statements to draw attention, and which issues are ones they actually plan to address.
Because I'm gonna be more than a little miffed if the upcoming Trump administration 2.0 goes after trans folks and drag queens, yet does nothing about the pet eating illegal aliens. If he doesn't take his campaign promises seriously, welp, there goes his chances at a 3rd term. /s (I shouldn't have to add the /
Re: Oh no, doxxed by a right wing group! (Score:2)
Who can pass up a straight line like that? (Score:2)
Because zombies prefer brains?
Re: (Score:2)
men in women's spaces
You mean like this [npr.org]? Or this [nbcsandiego.com]?
I was kinda hoping one of those was more along the lines of this [alamy.com] or this [sitcomsonline.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Those people at the women's job faire all checked the trans box which makes them women. Real women. That's how they self identified therefore it is what they are.
How dare you dead-gender them and call them men based solely on their external appearance! Your misogyny is disgusting!
Gender is a social construct.
Re: (Score:2)
People claim the left is obsessed with identity politics, yet it's always the loopy MAGAhats who keep making endless posts like this.
We know you won't stop until you've legislated men into women's bathrooms. I think I've know why, perv.
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from the fact that some MAGA idiot was across the street filming the polling place for his dumb TikTok channel (yea, I saw the video of myself, no, I'm not going to link to it), my partner and I had no difficulties with early voting in Florida.
Granted, it didn't result in the outcome we'd hoped for, but living in Florida we're used to it by now.
Re: That's OK (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What is more likely... 15 *million* people somehow couldn't vote this time and 80 million is the new Democrat standard or something "odd" occurred in the one year where the numbers didn't match the pattern and the one year of 80 million had 15 million extra that didn't belong?
At least get the numbers right. It's 12 million not 15. There is a long tail that takes time for all votes to be recorded. Still low number of millions of votes yet to be recorded across all candidates.
Massive amounts of voter data in granular detail spanning decades is publicly available for elections. Idle speculation over which scenario is more likely may be the only possible course of action when no better data is available, in this case it is merely a manifestation of extreme intellectual laziness.
W
Re: (Score:2)
There would be no point spreading 15 million votes nationwide. A lot of the states are consistently won be a particular party so you'd either increase your own majority (a complete waste of effort), or swing a safe state (would attract a LOT of scrutiny).
You'd concentrate the 15 million votes on the small handful of key swing states, where it would be a much more noticeable jump.
Re: (Score:3)
Every lawsuit was dismissed for lack of standing including ones filed by Trump's campaign. Not a single lawsuit was dismissed on evidence. But you knew that because you read quality fact based news.
Lack of standing due to evidence. https://campaignlegal.org/resu... [campaignlegal.org]
Ward v. Jackson (Ariz. Sup. Ct., Maricopa Cnty. Dec. 4, 2020) – The superior court denied relief requested by the plaintiff in an election contest because the plaintiff failed to meet the evidentiary standard necessary for such a contest.
Another case.
King v. Whitmer (E.D. Mich. Dec. 7, 2020) – While the district court stated that the claims of plaintiffs—Republican presidential electors—could be dismissed for lack of
Re: (Score:2)
Now show us the other 60 cases.
I'll wait.
Re: (Score:2)
How about you find a case that was allowed to proceed.
Re: (Score:2)
Every lawsuit was dismissed for lack of standing including ones filed by Trump's campaign. Not a single lawsuit was dismissed on evidence. But you knew that because you read quality fact based news.
Unscented unfiltered unadulterated bullshit in the raw.
https://campaignlegal.org/resu... [campaignlegal.org]
Please stay on topic and explain where 15m people went between 2020 and 2024.
LOL the difference isn't 15m. Once you've mastered counting come back and give us your evidence for fraud based on statistically relevant objective evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Your buddy Rsilvergun said 18m. It doesn't matter if it was 12m or 15m or 18m. That's some OCD bullshit. The point remains.
It didn't help (Score:2)
But again, what's more likely, that 15m (it was 15, not 16) didn't show up because they didn't notice the most heavily advertised election in human history or that they got there to vote, had jobs, kids or hell bladders and so couldn't wait 7 hours in line?
Re: (Score:2)
The Democratic party never threatened to use presidential immunity to prosecute people doing their job. And the Democrats didn't repeat the threat 100 times.