It Might Not Be Over In Mississippi… Multiple Examples of Fraudulent Ballots Turning Up as Conservatives Mount Investigations….

Two distinct political type investigations are going on simultaneously in Mississippi.   The first is to identify exactly who was behind the racist Robocall to democrats in an effort to manipulate the vote counts; and also identify the people behind the racist flyers.  Most research seems to indicate former Republican Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, and his political PAC, as the source of the race-baiting attack ads.  

The second investigative aspect is an actual legal challenge to the results.    Preliminary review is turning up widespread fraud from Democrats who voted in their own party primary on 6/3/14 and then voted again in the Republican primary runoff on 6/24/14.  Those cross party votes would be considered illegal and discounted if challenged legally by the McDaniel team.   [Mississippi is an open primary state, but you can't vote for one party then vote again in the runoff that was not the party of your original vote].

miss fraud

This example shows 3 Dems on one page of the voter roll who committed fraud.  There are thousands and thousands of pages which would have to be reviewed. More information is available HERE

More than 25,000 Mississippi Republicans voted for conservative McDaniel over establishment Cochran in the GOP primary runoff.   However, approximately 35,000 Democrats went to the polls and voted for Cochran – that’s how he squeaked out a victory.  Most people agree the cross-party manipulation above was the cause.

(American Spectator) Who paid for it? Who will investigate it? Who will apologize for it? “It” being the flier distributed in the Mississippi Senate GOP primary, as seen here, whose headline reads: “The Tea Party intends to prevent blacks from voting on Tuesday.”

thad cochran - chris mcdaniel

The flier says that the Tea Party uses the word “Democrats” as “code” for blacks. In short? Somebody out there in Mississippi put out a race-baiting flier to smear both Thad Cochran’s Tea Party opponent Chris McDaniel and the Tea Party itself. Using the worst lie about Republicans — against a Republican.

More than a blatant untruth, the flier is now big news itself, featured on talk radio and spread across the Internet and conservative media. (Over at National Review, John Fund asks if this was “The Flier That Got Thad Cochran Elected?”) So too has this pro-Cochran robocall, which asks voters to say “NO to their [the Tea Party’s] disrespectful treatment of the first African-American president,” come to light. The question on everyone’s lips: Whodunit?

Don’t forget that the Republican establishment strongly backed Cochran. GOP Senators, as mentioned over at Breitbart, were not long ago raising money for him at a National Republican Senatorial Committee fundraiser hosted by Mitch McConnell. It would boggle the mind, but did any of that money pay for the flyer and robocall?

Meanwhile, all of this is going to backfire. You can lose by winning.  (read more)

About these ads
This entry was posted in Decepticons, Election 2014, Mitch McConnell, propaganda, Tea Party, Uncategorized, Voter Fraud. Bookmark the permalink.

93 Responses to It Might Not Be Over In Mississippi… Multiple Examples of Fraudulent Ballots Turning Up as Conservatives Mount Investigations….

  1. screwauger says:

    Bring it!!

    Like

  2. McDaniel’s supporters and legal team need to get on this ASAP! And don’t be wimps about it. Look at Washington State for lesson in how Republicans totally blew the 2004 vote for governor. Pay special attention to how King County (Seattle) kept counting in the weeks following the election, with totals for the Dem candidate going up each time. When the totals didn’t go up fast enough, an election worker “found” some ballots in her car that had been “missed” in the original count. The Repub lawyers were pitiful.

    Like

  3. David says:

    Nice :)

    Like

  4. chiavarm says:

    That would be great if enough fraudulent votes were thrown out giving McDaniel the victory! His chances are good considering these Dem crossovers apparently have the same level of integrity as Obama.

    Like

  5. LetJusticePrevail" says:

    Well, I’m not certain that the 3 examples shown from this Democratic Poll Book are clear evidence of voter fraud. Yes, those 3 people voted in the 6/3 primary, and again in the 6/24 runoff, but that’s perfectly legal, unless they voted Deomcrat in the 6/3 primary,which would make them ineligible to vote in the runoff.

    What (on that page) indicates WHO they voted for on 6/3?

    Like

    • stella says:

      That’s a Democratic poll book. Doesn’t that indicate that they voted Democrat?

      Like

      • Chip Bennett says:

        There was no Democrat election on 6/24. There was only a Republican runoff election. If they signed the Democrat poll book on 6/3, and voted on a Democrat ballot, then they committed vote fraud by participating at all in the 6/24 runoff election.

        Like

        • stella says:

          That’s what I was trying to say, Chip. What LJP was asking was “What (on that page) indicates WHO they voted for on 6/3?”

          I replied that it was a Democratic poll book, so they voted in the Democrat primary on June 3.

          Like

          • Chip Bennett says:

            Not necessarily. It depends on how Mississippi handles their voter rolls during a primary election. If they maintain books of voters by party affiliation, but the primary is open, someone could conceivably sign a Democrat poll book, but select a Republican primary ballot. (I’m guessing that doing so would land that voter in the Republican voter roll in the subsequent election cycle.)

            I also notice that the poll book doesn’t have any signatures, which I find incredibly strange. Every poll book I’ve ever dealt with (and I’ve run polling places in three states) has a field for the voter to sign, indicating a ballot cast in the election – usually along with some sort of non-identifiable ballot-tracking number that gets recorded, for reconciliation purposes.

            But this poll book only has a column for the poll worker to record “voted”.

            Like

            • LetJusticePrevail" says:

              Here’s something that relates Mississippi statutes regarding elections and poll books, but I can’t really find anything that clearly says whether or not the voters are listed in separate poll books based on how they registered rather than how they actually voted. BUT, since the books are printed for use before the elections, it only makes sense if they are a list of people who registered democrat, but may have voted either way on 6/3.

              GO TO CHAPTER 119

              So, if I am correct, this still leaves in question the manner in which these folks voted on 6/3. Does the phrase “Secret Ballot” come into play here? Could it turn out that there is no legal way to determine exactly how each of these people actually voted on 6/3 and 6/24?

              Will it be necessary to use some sort of “fuzzy math” by taking the sum total of all votes cast on 6/3, and reverse engineer the maximum possible number of Dems who might have voted GOP on 6/3, and then use that number to determine the max possible number of Dems who mighthave voted GOP on 6/24?

              I’m getting a headache just trying to figure out how this can be determined,if it proves impossible to determine how each person voted on 6/3 and 6/24.

              Am I raising an unnecessary concern, or is this dilemma a real possibility?

              Like

            • deqwik says:

              Alabama is an open primary state just like MS. When we vote in a primary we have to declare which party we want to vote for & then we sign the book for that party & are handed a ballot for that party. There are separate ballots for each party so it is impossible to declare Dem & vote Rep. We would have the same problem during a run off as MS is having. This has caused our state to start questioning the way we do things.

              Like

              • LetJusticePrevail" says:

                That’s good to know. Anyone here from Mississippi who can “lay out” the actual mechanics of how the MS “open primary” actually works in the polling stations?

                Like

                • deqwik says:

                  Here is something from MS that explains how it is suppose to happen at the poling place. http://bolivarcom.com/bookmark/25269103-Cross-voting-barred-in-runoff

                  Like

                  • QuadGMoto says:

                    If that explanation is accurate (and I don’t see any reason to think otherwise) then those three votes listed in the photo were of people who voted in the Democrat primary, then voted in the Republican runoff, a clear and definite violation of the law.

                    Like

                  • Bogey says:

                    That is very good to read. If there are two separate books with matching info across them then any double signatures in the Democrat book are clear illegal votes. The next step is to compare the two books and ensure no voter on 6/24 voted in the Democrat book on 6/3.

                    Lots of manpower to pull this off.

                    Like

            • tappin52 says:

              I thought that I read that Mississippi does not register voters by party. This would then make it clear that if they chose a Democrat ballot for the primary, then they would be ineligible to vote in the Republican runoff.

              Like

            • michellc says:

              It seems Mississippi does this very strange, the poll worker writes voted in the column and then the voter signs a receipt book, according to their instructions.
              6. Write “VOTED” in the pollbook beside the voter’s name and in the column with the
              election date in the header. (Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-545)
              7. The voter signs his/her name in the receipt book and casts his/her ballot on the TSX
              voting machine. (Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-541)

              http://www.sos.ms.gov/links/elections/2014/MS%20Poll%20Manager%20Guide%20for%20TSX%20Counties_April%202014.pdf

              Now what makes no sense to me is there was no runoff for the democrats. The poll workers are supposed to ask which primary they voted in and see that they get a ballot for the correct runoff primary. So why did poll workers allow them to vote when they had the evidence in front of them that they voted in the democrat primary? Unless I’m missing something?

              Like

              • Bogey says:

                Hmm, they use an encoder. Apparently the procedure is they sign the book, the poll workers then encode a card based on what ballot they request. The guidelines don’t do a very good job tracking what type of ballot the voter requests. If Mississippi doesn’t keep tabs on what kind of ballot is requested, it makes the fight still possible though a bit tougher.

                Like

                • michellc says:

                  Not all counties though have the TSX voting machine. The way I understand it that during a primary they ask the voter if they want to vote in the democrat or republican primary. Then they encode the proper ballot or give them the proper ballot in the non TSX counties. The worker writes vote in the book and then there is a receipt book the voter actually signs.
                  The only logical conclusion I can come to on the pollbook is that all registered voters are printed in each party book and they write vote in the appropriate book.

                  We Okies might not be the brightest, but our election process sure is a lot simpler. No open primaries and our name is listed in just one book and we sign that book when given a ballot.

                  Like

                  • michellc says:

                    Our ballot is pretty simple as well, fill in a box next to who you want to vote for or yea or nay for a question and stick our ballot in a machine. Pretty much foolproof.

                    Like

    • Josh says:

      I agree with stella. How can one person vote in a democrat primary AND a republican primary?

      Like

      • stella says:

        They voted Democrat in the June 3 primary. They were, therefore, ineligible to vote in the Republican primary on June 24.

        Like

      • LetJusticePrevail" says:

        BUT, the poll books are pre-printed BEFORE the 6/3 primary election, so I suspect they only indicate how the voters actually registeredbut not how they cast their ballots on 6/3. They might have registered Dem, so they would appear in the Democratic Poll Book, but that doesn’t mean they actually voted Dem on 6/3.

        Like

    • Inkraven says:

      “Democratic Poll Book” right at the top there. Key word being “Democratic”, unless it’s meant in the more conventional sense.

      Like

      • LetJusticePrevail" says:

        But, that could just indicate what party affiliation they named when they registered. It doesn’t necessarily indicate how they actually voted on 6/3. See what I’m saying? The nature of these books, and how they were compiled needs to be “fleshed out”. Also, we need to know more about the actual mechanics in play inside the polling places.

        Like

        • deqwik says:

          MS does not have a party registration law so they only have to declare which party they want to vote for while they are signing the book to vote & then they are handed a ballot for that party. (They do not name their party when they register)

          Like

          • LetJusticePrevail" says:

            They don’t name the party when they register, but sign a book for a particular party when they vote? Sorry, but that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, because the book shown in the picture was already printed prior to the 6/3 election, and contains ZERO signature. What you’re saying doesn’t add up to what is being laid in front of us.

            Like

            • deqwik says:

              What you are looking at appears to be a computer generated result sheet but not the actual book that was at polling place. There is no way they could know ahead of time which way a person is going to vote prior to the primary.

              Like

              • LetJusticePrevail" says:

                How could a computer generated result sheet have the word “voted” hand written on it? And why would it have “Poll Book” printed on the top of the page it it was a “result sheet”?

                Like

            • michellc says:

              You have to read how Mississippi does things, it is quite confusing. They don’t signs the poll book, the poll worker writes in vote in the appropriate column when they vote, then the voter signs a receipt.
              They don’t register as a party, you can go to their election site and download a registration form to see that no party is listed.
              So they only thing I can see that is happening is all registered voters have their names printed in each book for the primaries, otherwise there is no way for them to know how they’re going to vote in advance then when they declare which primary their vote is recorded in the appropriate book.
              The workers had to have known they were allowing them to vote illegally.

              Like

        • TrickleUpPolitics says:

          If it was a Dem primary then they could only have voted for Dems. If they voted then, they cannot vote again. Period. What’s so hard here? As far as I know, there are no Republicans running in a Dem primary.

          Like

  6. Chip Bennett says:

    The real, actionable source of vote fraud here is highlighted in the last tweet: Democrat voters who voted in the June 3rd Democrat primary, then voted in the June 24th Republican primary run-off.

    85,000 democrats voted in the the Democrat primary. If any of them voted in the Republican primary run-off, then they broke state law in doing so, and committed vote fraud. If only 5% of them voted in the Republican primary runoff, then the vote fraud demonstrably changed the election outcome, and the results must not be certified.

    Hammer this. Hammer it hard.

    Like

  7. Josh says:

    “Who paid for it? Who will investigate it? Who will apologize for it?”
    I don’t want an apology. I want the truth and then I want them to pay. Pay for the recount and oh, so much more.

    Like

    • WeeWeed says:

      Me, too. What “apology” fixes ANYTHING??? It’s a liberal concept. “I’m sorry” (ala PeeWee Herman) doesn’t make ANY of it palatable.

      Like

  8. sundance says:

    Why were Democrat poll books even taken out for use ?

    Like

    • LetJusticePrevail" says:

      Why wouldn’t they be? Dems were being asked to vote in the run-off, and appearing at the polls. They HAD to be verified as to whether or not they would have been eligible to vote, since MS has laws that exclude late registrations, tax delinquents and convicted criminals from voting.

      But nothing in MS law would prevent a Dem from voting in the 6/24 runoff, unless that same voter had voted Dem in the 6/3 primary.

      Question is, was/is there any way to determine how a person actually voted on 6/3? Is this an oversight in MS voting law that can’t be checked? Did Cochran exploit a flaw in the system, knowing there’s no way to prove whether a particular individual voted Dem or GOP on 6/3?

      Like

      • bogey says:

        Time to pull out the mathematics. If you have 1000 republican primary voters in a district with 5000 democratic primary voters and the runoff has more than 1000 identified double voters than every voter above 1000 would be suspect. The only legal double voters were Republican balloted voters. Which would cap at 1000.

        Simple really. Tally all republican ballots cast then subtract them from all double votes. Mathematically that which remains is suspect ballots. Even after accounting for non-repeating republican voters. The math is clear.

        God speed McDaniel.

        Like

        • LetJusticePrevail" says:

          The math might be simple,but the lies provided to obfuscate this won’t be. I can already hear them claim:

          “Simple arithmetic isn’t ample to reach that conclusion! Who can say how many Republicans voted for McDaniel on 6/3, but had a “change of heart” and voted for Cochran on 6/24?”

          The same can be said of the Dems.

          “Who can say which of the Dems that voted on 6/3 didn’t vote Republican? It’s an open primary, so there could have been many!”

          And

          “Who can say how many of the Dems that voted GOP on 6/24 voted for Cochran? There could be a great many that voted for McDaniel!”

          See where I’m going? Without a ballot by ballot recount that actually links the ballots to the people who cast them how can McDaniel get any particular ballots rejected?

          Sure we all believe there was massive voter fraud involved in the run off, but court cases aren’t won on what you believe. They are won by what you can prove. And I believe the whole issue of “secret ballots” will prevent McDaniel from coming anywhere near actually proving what really happened.

          And, oh, just in case you’re wondering, the progs are ALREADY starting their defense, by making the claim that the Tea Party will now assault the revered tradition of “Secret Ballots”. Neat, huh?

          http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/06/26/1309840/-I-Suppose-the-Secret-Ballot-Will-Be-Next-On-the-Tea-Party-Hit-Parade#comments

          Like

          • Bogey says:

            Again. It’s the math. If there were only 1000 Republican ballots cast, there can not be more than 1000 legal double voters. There could not be any more than that. If you have 1,302 double voters, Republican or Democrat, then you have at least 302 illegal ballots cast. Either the voter sat out the 6/3 ballot for both sides, sat out the 6/24 runoff, or voted in both Republican elections (6/3 and 6/24). There’s only three conditions that make a possibilities here and only one that could produce a legal double vote.

            (Total double voters) – (Total Republican 6/3 ballots cast) = Illegal ballots cast

            Like

            • QuadGMoto says:

              It seems to me that it’s simpler. If illegal vote identification is as simple as this sheet seems to imply, then if the number of illegal votes exceeds the margin of victory, the correct election results cannot be determined, and is thus invalid.

              Now if MS somehow kept ballots for those who voted in the Democrat primary in a separate category from all other votes (first time in primary, Republican primary voters), then it should be possible to simply throw out the entire category without knowing how individual voters voted. There is precedent for this given the established categories of absentee votes, and provisional ballots. The question is, did MS do this?

              Like

            • LetJusticePrevail" says:

              I get your point about X-Y=Z, but MY point is, how can McDaniel PROVE that Z=illegal votes cast for Cochran? He can’t. Cochran can argue that some (or all) of those votes could have been cast for McDaniel. AND, it’s entirely possible that Z could turn out to be less than Cochran’s margin of victory, which renders the issue moot. But, for the sake of argument, let’s say that isn’t the case. What can McDaniel prove?

              The BEST he could do is to argue that there was some sort of fraud that might be of enough quantity to have stolen the run-off from him, but NOT be able to prove that is what actually happened. Now, what options does that leave for the court?

              1) Declare that there isn’t substantial proof to overturn the results and let them stand.

              2) Declare that there is proof of substantial voter fraud, and order a new run-off.

              What does Mississippi voter law specify in this event?

              Like

              • Bogey says:

                He doesn’t have to prove they voted for Cochran. Just that there was enough double voting that they “could” have affected the result.

                Look at it this way. I I just walked up and stuffed 10,000 illegal ballots into a box, you wouldn’t have to prove that in an election where the margin was 5,000 votes that I put 5,000 votes more one way than the other. Just that the sheer amount “could” have spoiled the result.

                A judge could reorder it. Look at Bush v Gore where there were two decisions. One was decided 7-2 that the recounts demanded by Gore wasn’t legal. The other one was decided 5-4 that there was no legal remedy to it due to the deadline constraints. The dissent argued there was the ability to recount the state. That ended the recounts and the rest is history.

                Or look to The Franken dispute where 216 voters were possibly illegal in a race where the margin was just over 300. The threshold of taint did not mar the results of the election as certified.

                Agnosticism is good enough for such an issue as long as you can prove the amount of votes indelibly taints the election. McDaniel first has to prove there were enough illegal votes that the certified number is tainted enough to possibly affect the outcome before a judge. Then the judge will decide on how to correct the problem, if it can be corrected. He may very well order the SoS to prepare a roll of legal voters based off of the 6/3 election for a revote with an admonishment they do a better job next time.

                Getting those rolls and the certified numbers is paramount for McDaniel.

                Like

  9. sundance says:

    Like

  10. yankeeintx says:

    http://ballotpedia.org/Mississippi_elections,_2014

    “Primary: Mississippi is one of 21 states with a mixed primary system. Voters do not have to register with a party, but they must intend to support the party nominations if they vote in the primary election”
    So does this mean that anyone who voted for Cochran in the runoff, must vote Republican in the general election?
    Not only do they need to figure out who broke the law, they need to prosecute each and everyone of them. I am sure Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson will be happy to cover any court costs and fines.

    Like

    • doodahdaze says:

      That there is goofy.

      Like

    • LetJusticePrevail" says:

      “Not only do they need to figure out who broke the law, they need to prosecute each and everyone of them.”

      Agreed. They should, but will they? I envision this working out much along the lines of the EBT scandal (when the system went down and the cardholder’s emptied the shelves at WalMarts). There will be a lot of saber-rattling and rhetoric but, in the end, few (if any) will ever be punished.

      Like

    • In Indiana primaries, you must declare which party you will vote for in the primaries only. You will be given a ballot for that party. If there would be a run off, only those who voted with that parties ballot would be legally allowed to vote in the runoff. In the fall general election, you get a ballot with all parties on it. You may vote however you want – single party or split ticket.

      From what I’ve read but not verified, MS is similar. In that case, anyone who voted on a Democrat Primary ballot would be excluded from being eligible for voting in the run off.

      Anyone here who knows the actual law in MS?

      Like

      • stella says:

        When we still had closed primaries in Michigan, you didn’t have to declare a party (you still don’t have to declare a party at any time here), but there was only one ballot with all candidates. At that time, you chose the party, and voted only for those candidates.

        The last couple of elections, the Democrats decided to have a caucus instead of joining the primary, so we had cross-over voting in the Republican primary.

        Like

  11. Chip Bennett says:

    How Open Primaries are handled by poll workers (based on experience in Missouri and Ohio):

    In both Missouri and Ohio, the registered voter rolls are not segregated by party. All registered voters are included in a single poll, which may be split into multiple books, according to last name (A-F, G-N, O-Z, for example). In both Missouri and Ohio, once the voter is verified as being registered and in the correct poll location, the voter is asked, “Which party’s ballot do you choose to vote today?“. The voter selects a party ballot (Republican, Democrat, or if applicable, Libertarian, Green, Constitution, etc.), or if there are ballot issues, the voter can select an “issues only” ballot.

    Here’s where things diverge.

    In Missouri, each voter is issued a sequentially numbered ticket. On the ticket is written a ballot style. The poll worker records the ticket number in the poll book next to the voter’s signature. The voter hands the ticket to the assistant supervisor, who either gives the voter a paper ballot to fill out, or sets up the electronic voting machine with the correct party ballot. The assistant supervisor keeps the ticket.

    When polls are closed, the poll workers reconcile the number of ballots cast with the number of voter tickets issued, and with the number of signatures in the poll book(s). All should match. But note that the voter ticket only contains the voters name, a sequential number, and a ballot style. There is no information kept regarding how the voter voted on the issued ballot.

    In Ohio, there are no voter tickets, but the ballots themselves have tracking numbers, which are on a perforated part of the ballot. The poll workers verify the voter is registered and in the correct location, and then the voter signs the poll book. The poll worker asks the voter which party’s ballot he chooses to vote, and another poll worker selects a ballot, tells the poll worker with the poll book what the ballot number is, and the poll worker records the ballot number in the poll book, next to the voter’s signature. The poll worker tears the ballot out of the ballot book, leaving behind the ballot stub that has the tracking number. The voter then proceeds to vote on the ballot.

    When polls are closed, the poll workers reconcile the number of ballots cast with the number of signatures in the poll book, and with the total sequential number of ballot stubs. All should match. But note that the ballot number is found on the stub, and recorded in the poll book, but not on the voted ballot. There is no information kept regarding how the voter voted on the issued ballot.

    In both states, the selected party’s ballot determines the party for which the voter is considered “registered” for in subsequent election cycles. But for the most part, party registration is meaningless.

    Separating voter poll books by party affiliation is not something I remember seeing, and IMHO doesn’t seem like a very good idea.

    Like

  12. hawkeye13 says:

    Just the most recent voter fraud exposed.. each election has some, perhaps MS had some Maryland/Virginia Dems come down and vote. They know how to make their votes count.

    Like

  13. Republicans need to clean house! We must prosecute these jerks, send their butts to prison. Democrats may operate like this, but we’re supposed to be better than this. OUTRAGEOUS!!

    Like

  14. peachteachr says:

    Just want to remind you all that there might have been local races for councilmen, state offices, and even school board membership which would have brought out voters of both parties. In Georgia, you must declare your party to get a ballot. So if I were a democrat, I would never have access to vote for a republican. During a run-off, I would have to vote for the same party I voted for during the primary. In November, I could again vote for either party.

    Like

  15. LetJusticePrevail" says:

    This whole mess is giving me a headache. Is the bar open yet?

    Like

  16. nyetneetot says:

    So the election is not over yet?

    Like

    • We can only hope.

      Like

    • LetJusticePrevail" says:

      It’s allover but the crying. As much as I would like to see McDaniel turn this thing around with a successful elections fraud suit, I’m willing to bet dollars to donuts that he’s stymied by laws surrounding “secret ballots” and voters’ rights. Cochran has exploited a flaw in the system,and you can darn well bet that the Mississippi Dems will scream “FOUL” at the top of their lungs if any election reform legislation is proposed.

      McDaniel lost, and the ONLY way to stop this is for the TP voters to throw Cochran under the bus in November. And they need to do it loudly,and beforehand. They need to openly campaign as the Tea Party in support of Cochran’s Dem opponent and PROMISE this will be done every time a RINO tries to pull this kind of crap.

      Yeah, it will cost the GOP a seat in the Senate, but what difference does it make when that seat would be filled by an ass like Cochran?

      Like

      • nyetneetot says:

        :( Well phooey.

        Like

      • talkaftercarefulthought says:

        That is what I proposed a while back.. burn the “lifer” RINOs to the ground.. if you can get a dem w/o name recognition in.. perhaps getting them out will be a much easier affair come next time around. Hell given what these reps are doing there may be no better answer…

        Like

  17. QuadGMoto says:

    Here’s an interesting statement from the MS Poll Manager Guide for TSX Counties linked to by michellc:

    “If a Primary Runoff Election is conducted, each voter is asked in which party primary election he/she previously voted upon entering the polling place. The voter is then directed to that party’s check-in table.

    So is this page from the book at the Democrat check-in table? The linked document provides no obvious clarity to this question.

    Then there’s the problem of how they voted. It’s private on purpose, so their spoiled ballots cannot simply removed from the counts. Then what? Run yet another runoff with verification that previous democrat primary voters may not cast a vote, period? Is that even possible? Is there the political will to do such a thing?

    Like

    • LetJusticePrevail" says:

      “The linked document provides no obvious clarity to this question.”

      That’s the whole problem. We are trying to dissect a process that (as outsiders) is complex and difficult to understand. And here’s another big problem, even if we DO get a grasp on that process:

      ….”each voter is asked in which party primary election he/she previously voted upon entering the polling place…

      Doesn’t that mean this whole process is completed under an “honor system”? LOL What could possibly go wrong?

      Like

    • Bogey says:

      If that’s the case, then there could be no legal double vote in the Dem book. Each side would have to have a duplicate books though.

      I think McDaniel can make this a lot easier if that’s the case. You’d have 3 instances proven of illegal balloting on the 6/24 election.

      Like

  18. yankeeintx says:

    Look what I found. It is a form to report voter fraud in Mississippi. I wonder if they even look at forms submitted by out-of-state residents?

    http://www.sos.ms.gov/elections_report_election_fraud.aspx

    Like

    • QuadGMoto says:

      I highly doubt it. The office handbook lists those who have standing to challenge a vote. Essentially there are three categories: election officials, poll watchers (including official candidate reps), and those legally able to vote in the location where the vote is being challenged.

      Like

  19. On fb, True the Vote is trying to assist in gathering the fraud date.
    Mississippi Primary Runoff voters: If you saw something, say something – TRUE the VOTE attorneys are following up on your incident reports:

    Like

  20. Attorney says:

    So tired of the dishonor.So tired of it.

    Like

    • LetJusticePrevail" says:

      Me too. What with all of the cases of multiple votes cast by a single person, votes by dead people, votes by non-citizens, votes by impersonators, vote counting fraud, and now this, I’m just about ready to give up on the “system” altogether.

      Like

    • doodahdaze says:

      +1 it has devolved in to a Loot splitting frenzy. Like a crew of pirates fighting over it all.

      Like

  21. justfactsplz says:

    I hope McDaniel goes after this and gets the proof he needs. Don’t tread on us. Wolverines!

    Like

  22. IntoTheFray says:

    Barbour & Cochran’s hard drives to crash in 3, 2, 1…

    Like

    • doodahdaze says:

      :) Crash! Then of to be recycled. They may have won the battle and lost the war. Their credibility is probably in the toilet now in their state.

      Like

  23. doodahdaze says:

    Since this is a party primary I wonder if the party is even bound by the election results?

    Like

  24. Anne says:

    Just saw on Fox News at bottom of screen that it’s over for somebody. One of the suspects in case of the photos of Mrs. Corcoran in nursing home found dead. Saying maybe suicide. His name was Mark Mayfield. Fox said he was associated with the Tea Party. RIP Mr. Mayfield.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s