How Strongly Do we Believe in Fair Elections?
In the past several weeks I have posted many posts on DU which have included evidence which I consider to be highly suggestive of election fraud against Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries. This evidence includes: massive voter suppression/purging in Arizona (and evidence that the purging was targeted at Sanders) and New York and other states; a fake audit of voting machines in Illinois, in which public citizens observed the auditors changing their hand count of the vote to match the machine count by subtracting Sanders votes and adding Clinton votes to their initial hand count (and they provided sworn testimony to that effect); huge discrepancies between exit polls and the official vote counts, in which Sanders almost always does considerably worse in the official count than predicted by the exit polls; screen shots from the Delaware primary that showed Sanders’ vote DECREASING as the number of reporting precincts increased, and; the fact that Sanders does so much better in precincts that are hand counted and in caucuses, where election fraud is so much more difficult.
For all this, I am repeated accused by Clinton supporters of being a “conspiracy theorist” (as if conspiracies to steal election in our country could not possibly occur) and worse.
But I believe that those accusations are all unfair, because I have never advocated that any vote counts or delegates be revised on the evidence that I present or any other evidence alone. All I am advocating is extensive hand counted and publicly observed audits (as was done in the Florida 2000 Presidential election, and nobody on DU that I am aware of had any problem with that) of all states that exhibited substantial exit poll discrepancies from the official vote count or exhibited other evidence of election fraud. Such audits should reveal whether or not there are extensive discrepancies between the hand counted audits and the machine counts.
Anyone who knows anything about our election system knows that our electronic voting machines can be easily manipulated for election fraud. Why shouldn’t we at least have a system for auditing them with hand counts at the slightest evidence of fraud?
What is so terrible about that? The results of such audits should do away with the need to theorize about whether the Democratic primaries have been rife with election fraud. They should put an end to all “conspiracies theories” on the subject. I don’t see any valid reason why either Sanders supporters or Clinton supporters should be against that, except that maybe it might make their candidate look bad. At worst, it will cost some money and effort. At best it could help save our democracy.
I am conducting a poll on this because I would very much like to know where DUers stand on this issue, which I consider to be of the utmost importance to our democracy:
| 43 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
| I am a Sanders supporter who believes that in the interest of fair elections, extensive audits should be performed as suggested in the OP | |
40 (93%) |
|
| I am a Clinton supporter who believes that in the interest of fair elections, extensive audits should be performed as suggested in the OP | |
0 (0%) |
|
| I am a Sanders supporter who believes that there is insufficient evidence to warrant extensive hand counted audits of the Democratic primaries | |
0 (0%) |
|
| I am a Clinton supporter who believes that there is insufficient evidence to warrant extensive hand counted audits of the Democratic primaries | |
2 (5%) |
|
| Other | |
1 (2%) |
|
| 0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
| Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
|
= new reply since forum marked as read
I never imagined dems advocating for us to ignore the evidence of our senses.
Where are the Hillary supporters in this poll?
I'll just leave it at that, and check on this thread later 
