Pivoting from the statistically non existent threat of voter fraud to the existent threat of voter intimidation/suppression
Vote Protectors, the anti-voter-fraud group hosted by Donald Trump ally and political dirty trickster Roger Stone, plans to send volunteers to monitor polling places in nine cities with high minority populations on Election Day, Stone said last week. Untrained poll-watchers have intimidated voters in previous elections. But Vote Protectors is going further than its predecessors.
Stone’s group created an official-looking ID badge for its volunteers to wear, and its volunteers planned to videotape voters and conduct fake “exit polls,” efforts that election experts say risks intimidating and confusing voters. Or at least that’s what the group was planning to do before The Huffington Post asked Stone about it on Tuesday. The controversial Trump ally, long known for his bare-knuckled political tactics, said that key proposals on his group’s websites were there without his knowledge, and assured HuffPost that he would operate within the confines of election law.
Vote Protectors’ volunteers “commit to go out in November and post their YouTube and Periscope streams to the [Vote Protectors] website, organized by state and district, as well as enter actual exit poll survey responses,” the group’s “members only” page reads.
To help volunteers broadcast their videos directly to the web, Vote Protectors offers detailed instructions on how to load livestream video software onto a smartphone and how to post videos to the Vote Protectors site.
By contrast, there appears to be very little information on how Vote Protectors are supposed to conduct “exit polls.” The video below, illustrating how to get started as a volunteer with the group, contains little information on how to conduct exit polls but plenty of information on how to stream videos of voters to the web.
Still, anyone registered as a volunteer with Vote Protectors can tally up votes at any time, for Trump or any other candidate, in what the site calls its “exit poll.” HuffPost accidentally logged two votes for Trump on Monday, visible below, despite having never entered an electoral precinct, and using a fake name.
And the end game beside voter intimidation in minority areas?
Stone said that unlike the model currently run by Vote Protectors, his group would “ask each poll worker to sign a sworn affidavit that the information they turn in for tabulation is true based on interviews.”
These affidavits, Stone told radio host Alex Jones Tuesday, could then be used by the Trump campaign to contest the election results.
Of course, polls gathered by Trump supporters used to challenge election results. Only valid in the bizzaro world The Donald and his lackeys inhabit. And for now at least the id creator has been taken down.
And of course the ongoing North Carolina GOP attempts at suppression
After North Carolina’s attempt to eliminate an entire week of early voting was struck down by a federal court in July, many Republican-controlled county election boards tried to take matters into their own hands. Dozens of counties voted to slash the number of early voting locations — especially targeting areas of high Democratic voter turnout like college campuses and African-American neighborhoods. Many, but not all, of these cuts were blocked by the state Board of Elections.
And where it stood the supression seems to be working
Voting rates in pivotal North Carolina are down so far from 2012 in nearly all the counties that cut early voting locations, a new analysis shows.
The numbers follow reports of long lines at polling sites in several places across the state. Some Charlotte voters said they waited three hours to cast a ballot Thursday.
The voting drop-off and the long wait times may bear out recent concerns that the controversial Republican-backed cuts to early voting, in combination with other voting changes and population growth, could restrict access to the ballot in some areas.
All brought to you by your friendly neighborhood GOP. So should we be more outraged over a problem that statistically does not exist, or actual suppression of votes that we see the results of? Not a tough choice for those still retaining their logical functions