Election Integrity

[jross]

Even if the non-SAVE compliant state information is inflated by 10x, this is a serious issue for elections decided by small margin.
---

The Department of Homeland Security has identified OVER 250,000 POTENTIALLY NON-CITIZENS ARE ILLEGALLY REGISTERED TO VOTE in California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Nevada.  Meanwhile Texas has 2300 identified.  The difference is that Texas leveraged SAVE to process their full voter list whereas the states mentioned do no.  DHS had to use public information to identify potential issues.  

Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) is an online service for registered federal, state, territorial, tribal, and local government agencies to verify immigration status and U.S. citizenship of applicants seeking benefits or licenses.

Read more...  https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Noncitizens-on-State-Voter-Rolls.zip

 

 

[jross]

This Cyber security email alleges the Intelligence Community (IC) deliberately downplayed and obscured Chinese election influence activities in the President's Daily Brief (PDB).  The IC is supposed to be apolitical... 

---
...year of 2020...

I think I mentioned to you before that there is some pending [REDACTED] that makes it clear China has been caught conducting election influence. At least that’s how it was described to us. [REDACTED] But as you scroll up, note that NSA is “deliberately massaged our one pending PDB to avoid any direct links to the election."

While this is important for your report I’m sure, it also has the potential to be a near-term issue we will need to draw attention to. This is a really good example, but far from the only one, of what I’ve been raising since the summer—that the IC is deliberately avoiding mentioning a connection to elections for non-substantive reasons.

Obviously since the [REDACTED] isn’t released yet—they’re holding it until next week—there isn’t a PDB so maybe it won’t end up being an issue. But this is a highly irregular way to do things, especially as someone trying to raise tradecraft and substantive objections to the mainline analysis and isn’t getting our work incorporated or even mentioned.

[REDACTED]National Intelligence Officer - Cyber
ODNI/National Intelligence Council

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Chinas-Acquisition-and-Exploitation-of-American-Voter-Data.zip > Email Massaged PDB... 

Edited July 17 by jross

[red viking]

"Potentially" LOL. Anything to show they actually were?

KEEP drinking the red Kool aid.

Edited July 17 by red viking

[jross]

This Michigan FBI case file is a strong 2020 election fraud signal: of 107 voter registrations reviewed, 91 people didn't exist in databases and 12 of the remaining 16 had mismatched (likely forged) signatures. Only 4 were legitimate.

---

Title: (U) Database Checks Spreadsheet
Date: 05/19/2023  From: DETROIT
Contact: [REDACTED]  Approved By: [REDACTED]  Drafted By: [REDACTED]  
Case ID #: 56D-DE-3407960-1B1_REVIEW
(U) [REDACTED] 1B1 Review Subfile;Synopsis: (U) Database Checks Spreadsheet  
Enclosure(s): Enclosed are the following items:  (U) Database Checks Spreadsheet

Details:
Database searches were conducted on the 107 voter registration applications from item 1B1 (Box containing voter registration forms. MUPD PR# 94333) in an attempt to identify voter registration applications with potentially fraudulent signatures or listing non-existent individuals. The database searches revealed the following:  Ninety-one individuals returned no results in database checks.  
Sixteen individuals were confirmed to be existing people but only four had signatures on file that matched the signatures provided on the associated voter registration application.

A spreadsheet summarizing the findings is attached in the 1A portion of the file.  

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Michigan-Voter-Registration-Investigation.zip

[jross]

9 minutes ago, red viking said:

"Potentially" LOL. Anything to show they actually were?

KEEP drinking the red Kool aid.

Not when the states refuse to share.  I inserted the word "potentially" in the actual document because I don't know how they verified the amount.  Other states that do leverage SAVE had initially had estimates of 10x higher from public records.  As mentioned, a 10x reduction to 25K in four states is a serious problem.

Edited July 17 by jross

[jross]

The democrat people overwhelmingly support voter ID.

The democrat leadership does not.

What fuckery is this between what the voters want and what leadership does on election integrity?

[red viking]

16 minutes ago, jross said:

This Michigan FBI case file is a strong 2020 election fraud signal: of 107 voter registrations reviewed, 91 people didn't exist in databases and 12 of the remaining 16 had mismatched (likely forged) signatures. Only 4 were legitimate.

---

Title: (U) Database Checks Spreadsheet
Date: 05/19/2023  From: DETROIT
Contact: [REDACTED]  Approved By: [REDACTED]  Drafted By: [REDACTED]  
Case ID #: 56D-DE-3407960-1B1_REVIEW
(U) [REDACTED] 1B1 Review Subfile;Synopsis: (U) Database Checks Spreadsheet  
Enclosure(s): Enclosed are the following items:  (U) Database Checks Spreadsheet

Details:
Database searches were conducted on the 107 voter registration applications from item 1B1 (Box containing voter registration forms. MUPD PR# 94333) in an attempt to identify voter registration applications with potentially fraudulent signatures or listing non-existent individuals. The database searches revealed the following:  Ninety-one individuals returned no results in database checks.  
Sixteen individuals were confirmed to be existing people but only four had signatures on file that matched the signatures provided on the associated voter registration application.

A spreadsheet summarizing the findings is attached in the 1A portion of the file.  

https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Michigan-Voter-Registration-Investigation.zip

https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/michigan-election-fraud-cited-in-trump-speech-had-no-impact-on-votes/

[red viking]

9 minutes ago, jross said:

The democrat people overwhelmingly support voter ID.

The democrat leadership does not.

What fuckery is this between what the voters want and what leadership does on election integrity?

You need to quit swallowing the rampant bs coming from this corrupt administration. They're nothing to back up his crap. 

[jross]

Remember Garland Favorito... the Georgia election integrity activist who won court approval to inspect the 2020 Fulton County ballots, only for the county to keep blocking access?  Bet he is happy that now the DOJ has seized those ballots and a large FBI team is now reviewing them. While it's too late for criminal charges due to the statute of limitations... (no surprise there...) any transparent outcome (lawful or crime) could help restore trust.

[red viking]

15 minutes ago, jross said:

Remember Garland Favorito... the Georgia election integrity activist who won court approval to inspect the 2020 Fulton County ballots, only for the county to keep blocking access?  Bet he is happy that now the DOJ has seized those ballots and a large FBI team is now reviewing them. While it's too late for criminal charges due to the statute of limitations... (no surprise there...) any transparent outcome (lawful or crime) could help restore trust.

Good luck.

[jross]

20 minutes ago, red viking said:

You need to quit swallowing the rampant bs coming from this corrupt administration. They're nothing to back up his crap. 

Nah man the Republican leadership is disconnected from its people on other topics.  On this sub topic of voter ID within Election Integrity, it's the Democratic leaders calling it Jim Crow while the street interviews and well accepted surveys have Democrats fully supporting Voter ID.  

[jross]

6 minutes ago, red viking said:

Good luck.

"No fraud found" is a great outcome.  "Fraud found" is also a great outcome.

Transparency is important.

Edited July 17 by jross

[jross]

33 minutes ago, red viking said:

https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/michigan-election-fraud-cited-in-trump-speech-had-no-impact-on-votes/

This reminds me of Trump supporters more concerned that Trump was caught on camera talking about grabbing women than what he said and what it implied.

Fraud occurred (and was sometimes caught).  But fraud occurred!  Nobody was charged.  But fraud occurred (and is difficult to catch)!  

Election trust is low and we can do something about it... but we are not.  Why is that?

[Caveira]

74% of Americans think voter id should be required.   

[Gene Mills Fan]

5 minutes ago, Caveira said:

74% of Americans think voter id should be required.   

Are we finding not 100% of the voters are Americans?

[Caveira]

59 minutes ago, Gene Mills Fan said:

Are we finding not 100% of the voters are Americans?

We are.  But Democrats won’t admit they want illegals here and don’t want them deported because they want them to both vote for the D and become citizens to continue voting for the D.    
 

i won’t look it up.   Meaning I won’t google it. @WrestlingRasta may get on here and discuss the algorithm.   
 

there is a senator on camera (female) who said literally “democrats will struggle to win elections in the future if we pass the save act”.   Saying the quiet part out loud isn’t part of the script.  

[Offthemat]

Our elections processes have become so irrational by attempts to inspire more participation that they’ve lost all resemblance to fair and accurate representation of the people’s will.  The Chinese have voter data for 220 million voters?  That’s what, about 60 million more than participated in the last presidential election?  Extended voting days, mail in votes, receiving and counting votes weeks and months after the election is over.  It’s as if someone read the manual on how to make it easy to cheat in elections and implemented every component.  There’s a lot of changes that’ll have to be made before we regain any confidence in our elections.  The problem right now seems to be that the ones getting elected are reluctant to change it.  Figure that out. 

[braves121]

1 hour ago, Offthemat said:

Our elections processes have become so irrational by attempts to inspire more participation that they’ve lost all resemblance to fair and accurate representation of the people’s will.  The Chinese have voter data for 220 million voters?  That’s what, about 60 million more than participated in the last presidential election?  Extended voting days, mail in votes, receiving and counting votes weeks and months after the election is over.  It’s as if someone read the manual on how to make it easy to cheat in elections and implemented every component.  There’s a lot of changes that’ll have to be made before we regain any confidence in our elections.  The problem right now seems to be that the ones getting elected are reluctant to change it.  Figure that out. 

It’s crazy how republicans keep saying 2020 election was stolen. Almost 600 days into this admin there have been no arrests. Not to mention the fact that trump saying china was able meddle with the 2020 election while HE was in charge yet we are supposed to believe the 2016, 2022, and 2024 elections were all legit because the gop won. This farce will continue until someone finally admits to trump he lost in 2020 and stop being yes men as we see in all the hearings for their confirmations 

[Caveira]

11 minutes ago, braves121 said:

It’s crazy how republicans keep saying 2020 election was stolen. Almost 600 days into this admin there have been no arrests. Not to mention the fact that trump saying china was able meddle with the 2020 election while HE was in charge yet we are supposed to believe the 2016, 2022, and 2024 elections were all legit because the gop won. This farce will continue until someone finally admits to trump he lost in 2020 and stop being yes men as we see in all the hearings for their confirmations 

All politics and politicians what?

members of the Democratic Party have historically contested election outcomes through legal challenges, requests for recounts, and formal congressional objections.

The term "contest" can refer to two different things in politics: challenging a declared election result or competing for a seat against an opponent. 

1. Challenging Election Outcomes

When a race is exceptionally close or irregularities are suspected, Democratic candidates and lawmakers have used established legal and constitutional frameworks to contest the results:

Recounts and Legal Challenges: The most notable modern example occurred during the 2000 presidential election. Democratic nominee Al Gore contested the initial vote counts in Florida, leading to a high-profile legal battle and a manual recount process that was ultimately halted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore. 

Congressional Objections: Democratic lawmakers have occasionally used the Electoral Count Act to voice formal protests during the joint session of Congress held to certify presidential elections.

2001: Several House Democrats attempted to object to Florida’s electoral votes following the contested 2000 election, though no senator signed on to support the objection.

2005: A formal objection was successfully lodged by a House Democrat and a Senate Democrat regarding Ohio's electoral votes from the 2004 election, citing voting irregularities and long lines. It prompted a brief floor debate before being overwhelmingly rejected.

2017: A small group of House Democrats attempted to object to electoral votes from multiple states won by Donald Trump in the 2016 election, but the objections were not sustained because no senator co-signed them. 

2. Contesting Seats Against Opponents

In terms of running candidates in elections, political data shows that both major parties sometimes leave races "uncontested"—meaning they fail to run a candidate against the opposing party, letting them win by default. 

According to historical tracking by groups like BallotReady, thousands of local, state, and federal races go uncontested by one of the major parties each cycle due to a lack of resources or the heavy partisan tilt of a specific district. In response to this, groups like the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC) frequently expand their target maps to fund and contest more state-level seats that previously went unanswered. 

Edited July 17 by Caveira

[braves121]

12 minutes ago, Caveira said:

All politics and politicians what?

members of the Democratic Party have historically contested election outcomes through legal challenges, requests for recounts, and formal congressional objections.

The term "contest" can refer to two different things in politics: challenging a declared election result or competing for a seat against an opponent. 

1. Challenging Election Outcomes

When a race is exceptionally close or irregularities are suspected, Democratic candidates and lawmakers have used established legal and constitutional frameworks to contest the results:

Recounts and Legal Challenges: The most notable modern example occurred during the 2000 presidential election. Democratic nominee Al Gore contested the initial vote counts in Florida, leading to a high-profile legal battle and a manual recount process that was ultimately halted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore. 

Congressional Objections: Democratic lawmakers have occasionally used the Electoral Count Act to voice formal protests during the joint session of Congress held to certify presidential elections.

2001: Several House Democrats attempted to object to Florida’s electoral votes following the contested 2000 election, though no senator signed on to support the objection.

2005: A formal objection was successfully lodged by a House Democrat and a Senate Democrat regarding Ohio's electoral votes from the 2004 election, citing voting irregularities and long lines. It prompted a brief floor debate before being overwhelmingly rejected.

2017: A small group of House Democrats attempted to object to electoral votes from multiple states won by Donald Trump in the 2016 election, but the objections were not sustained because no senator co-signed them. 

2. Contesting Seats Against Opponents

In terms of running candidates in elections, political data shows that both major parties sometimes leave races "uncontested"—meaning they fail to run a candidate against the opposing party, letting them win by default. 

According to historical tracking by groups like BallotReady, thousands of local, state, and federal races go uncontested by one of the major parties each cycle due to a lack of resources or the heavy partisan tilt of a specific district. In response to this, groups like the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee (DLCC) frequently expand their target maps to fund and contest more state-level seats that previously went unanswered. 

Do you notice how Al gore didn’t run around for 6 years after he lost saying he won? Or how about democrats who contested the 2016 election, are they still saying the voter system is rigged while they still win elections and can’t provide proof?

[Caveira]

Just now, braves121 said:

Do you notice how Al gore didn’t run around for 6 years after he lost saying he won? Or how about democrats who contested the 2016 election, are they still saying the voter system is rigged while they still win elections and can’t provide proof?

democrats even tried to contest trumps win in 2016.   Politics is a dirty game boss 
 

Post-Kennedy Era Contested Elections

1969 Certification (1968 Election): Hubert Humphrey vs. Richard Nixon

Context: While Democratic candidate Hubert Humphrey conceded the exceptionally close 1968 election to Richard Nixon, the result was still formally contested on the house floor.

The Contest: During the January 1969 joint session of Congress, representative James O'Hara (D-MI) and senator Edmund Muskie (D-ME) filed a formal, written objection under the Electoral Count Act. They challenged an electoral vote cast by a "faithless elector" from North Carolina who voted for third-party candidate George Wallace instead of Richard Nixon. Congress voted on the objection but ultimately chose to reject it. 

2000: Al Gore vs. George W. Bush

Context: The first modern election where the entire outcome hung on an active legal challenge.

The Contest: The margin of victory in Florida was so razor-thin that it triggered a mandatory machine recount, followed by legal battles over manual recounts of ambiguous "hanging chad" paper ballots. Al Gore formally contested the certified Florida results in state court. The dispute ended when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Bush v. Gore, halting the recount and awarding the presidency to Bush. During the subsequent 2001 congressional certification, several House Democrats attempted to file objections to Florida's electoral votes, though Vice President Gore himself gaveled them down because no senator had co-signed them. 

2004: John Kerry vs. George W. Bush

Context: John Kerry conceded the election on election night, but rank-and-file congressional Democrats chose to object during the formal certification.

The Contest: During the January 2005 joint session, representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-OH) and senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) lodged a formal, written objection to Ohio's 20 electoral votes. They cited widespread voting irregularities, broken voting machines, and long lines that allegedly disenfranchised Black voters. The objection forced the House and Senate to retreat to their respective chambers for a mandatory two-hour debate, where the objection was overwhelmingly rejected by both bodies. 

2016: Hillary Clinton vs. Donald Trump

Context: Hillary Clinton conceded the election the morning after Election Day, but lawmakers again protested the certification.

The Contest: During the January 2017 joint session of Congress, a group of roughly half a dozen House Democrats repeatedly rose to object to the electoral votes of multiple states won by Donald Trump (including Alabama, Georgia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania). They cited Russian cyber-interference, voter suppression, and malfunctioning voting machines. However, because no Democratic senator co-signed any of the written objections, Vice President Joe Biden ruled them out of order according to federal law.

[braves121]

3 minutes ago, Caveira said:

democrats even tried to contest trumps win in 2016.   Politics is a dirty game boss 
 

 

I literally said that in my post. Seems like you don’t really read people’s posts and just fly over to whatever ai you use to post stuff and reply to people about points that they already addressed. There’s a big difference in contesting an election, then accepting the rulings, compared to trump rambling about his “stolen” election 6 years after the fact that countless courts, audits, investigations, have found he lost and there was no fraud

[mspart]

Lets say we hold an election of just the posters on this forum.   

The vote is for who is the best most reasonable poster here.   

What ruleset should be used to ensure that the election is fair and free from any question as to its integrity?

mspart

[Caveira]

2 minutes ago, braves121 said:

I literally said that in my post. Seems like you don’t really read people’s posts and just fly over to whatever ai you use to post stuff and reply to people about points that they already addressed. There’s a big difference in contesting an election, then accepting the rulings, compared to trump rambling about his “stolen” election 6 years after the fact that countless courts, audits, investigations, have found he lost and there was no fraud

Maybe Trump just wants the elections to be safer / cleaner / fairer.   Ever think of that.  
 

he will naturally disappear from office In Due time.    If yall just ignore him your blood will boil less.   

Edited July 17 by Caveira

[mspart]

Just now, Caveira said:

Maybe Trump just wants the elections to be safer / cleaner.   Ever think of that.  
 

he will naturally disappear from office I. Due time.    If yall just ignore him your blood will boil less.   

Everyone should want their blood to boil less, good for health.   

mspart