Evidence suggests several state Senate candidates were plants funded by dark money

[ffr]

Source: Local 10 Miami

Why would candidates for Florida Senate seats do no campaigning, no fundraising, have no issue platforms, nor make any effort to get votes?

Local 10 News has found evidence to suggest three such candidates in three Florida Senate district races, two of them in Miami Dade County, were shill candidates whose presence in the races were meant to syphon votes from Democratic candidates.



Comparisons of the no-party candidates' public campaign records show similarities and connections that suggest they are all linked by funding from the same dark money donors, and part of an elaborate scheme to upset voting patterns.


Read more: https://www.local10.com/news/local/2020/11/11/evidence-suggests-several-state-senate-candidates-were-plants-funded-by-dark-money/

---

In one of those races, District 37, a recount is underway because the spread between the Democratic and Republican candidates is only 31 votes. The third party candidate received more than 6300 votes.

That third party candidate is Alexis Rodriguez, who has the same last name as the Democratic incumbent senator Jose Javier Rodriguez. The Republican challenger is Ileana Garcia.

Alexis Rodriguez falsified his address on his campaign filing form last June. The couple who now live at the Palmetto Bay address say they have been repeatedly harassed since then by people looking for Rodriguez, who hadn’t lived there in five years.

GOP ratf*ckery!

[lapfog_1]

1. if they didn't cheat they would never win

[questionseverything]

16. They say recount but they just scan ballots through

The same machines

It is illegal to actually check the ballot by hand in Florida

[mr_lebowski]

2. I hope someone at Democratic HQ is taking notes ... (nt)

[BlueWavePsych]

3. This just pisses me off

[4Q2u2]

4. Oldest Trick in the Book

James M. Curly ran that EONs ago.

[NoMoreRepugs]

5. Win at any cost - perhaps it's time for Democratic candidates to think outside the box?

Nothing illegal - just not so pious maybe??

[JudyM]

6. Local news saving democracy.

How did our local Dem leadership miss this?

[BComplex]

7. See? Democrats should have been all over this BEFORE the election!!!! We have to be

getting out ahead of the republican dirty tricks!

Running third party candidates.
Programming of vote tallying machines
Disenfranchisement

The republicans have been doing this shit for ages. We need to call it out BEFORE people go vote, so voters can be informed.

[Coyote45]

8. evidence suggests several state senators

follow the pea. the old carnival trick. works quite well for the republicans.

[Lonestarblue]

9. Third-party candidates are often spoilers. Imhave never forgiven Ralph Nader for Florida.

How do we put more restrictions on them? Or is just publicizing them the tricks enough?

[jmowreader]

17. Top-two primaries. It's the only way.

The State of Washington uses a primary system where the top two vote getters in the primary, REGARDLESS OF PARTY AFFILIATION, go to the general election and no one else does. (Yes, this means that the general election ballot for a particular race has occasionally had two Republicans or two Democrats on it.)

[BadgerMom]

10. Anyone shocked?

Yeah. I thought not.

[McCamy Taylor]

11. With paperless e voting a third party splitter

is essential if you plan to siphon votes from one major party candidate to give the other major party candidate a win.

[58Sunliner]

14. Jill Stein.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Same last name - designed to confuse a few voters?

A 1997 British election next door to me was decided by just 2 votes at first, with a spoiler candidate using an almost identical party name:

At the general election on 1 May 1997, Mark Oaten was originally declared the winner, with a majority of two votes over Conservative Gerry Malone, 20 hours after starting to count votes, with many recounts and haggling over spoilt ballots.[1][2]

Oaten was unseated on an electoral petition on 6 October 1997. The High Court held that 54 votes declared void for want of the official mark would have changed the result if counted. The court could not be sure they were not the product of a mistake, therefore deemed that the result was uncertain. They allowed the petition and declared the election void. The writ for the new election was moved on 28 October 1997.[3]

The by election on 20 November resulted in a clear win by Oaten – his majority was 21,556 over second placed Malone. Campaigning had focused on Oaten's speaking record in the House of Commons after the general election,[4] while the nature of the controversial 1 May election result was also an issue for some Liberal Democrat voters.

The Independent wrote, "Although careful not to articulate it themselves, their unofficial campaign slogan is: 'When the umpire gives you out, you should walk'",[4] alluding to the unseated Malone. The Labour Party obtained their worst ever results in a parliamentary election, in part because they hardly campaigned at all and instead focused their priorities on the by-election in Beckenham held on the same day.

Both the original and rerun election involved an incidence of a candidate using an attempted confusing description. Richard Huggett described himself in the general election as Liberal Democrat Top Choice For Parliament (leading to Oaten, the official Lib Dem candidate, to use the ballot paper description Liberal Democrat Leader Paddy Ashdown) and in the by election as Literal Democrat Mark Here to Win.[1][2] The Registration of Political Parties Act 1998 put an end to this practice.[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997_Winchester_by-election

[reACTIONary]

13. Very good reason for instituting ...

... run off elections.

[Rebl2]

15. I have

seen this in Missouri in the past in primaries. They say they are going to run, then do no campaigning, give minimal information about themselves, won’t speak to the media, and have nothing on their campaign website if they have one at all.