17 votes

Proof of Voter Fraud in Boston, MA

In Boston alone, in almost every single ward, there was a substantially higher number of votes than people actually registered to vote. See the following link for actual #'s:

http://www.cityofboston.gov/Images_Documents/Ward%20and%20Pr...

This is proof of vote fraud, and there is little doubt that this took place only in Boston. Vote fraud is the number one issue we face in this country right now and until this is addressed, we have little hope of restoring this Republic through peaceful means.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

.

in dr pauls district the polls opened at 7am but the machines were down county wide until 930am. then one by one they were coming up and going down. our location started with 12 booths and ended with 7 or less.
Fraud was rampant.
I went in to use a restroom and here was the 75yo election judge flipping a button on the bottom of one of the machines!!!lol
he flipped it over and hit a switch, then shook it like a present before opening!!
the "major fraud" comment i wrote on our local paper blog was remved and there were something like 18k missing absentee, mail in and provisional ballots. but they only reprted on 50 or 60 missing!!lol
its blatant fraud because we only have to look at the morons who were elected to be sure of it.

"OH NO! He has a SON?" Neoconservatives and Liberals EVERYWHERE!

Rand Paul 2016

This chart is unclear

I agree that it certainly does appear from that first set of numbers (the first three columns) that "Cards Cast" in almost any ward/precinct is higher than "Registered Voters," showing "% Turnout" at greater than 100%. In total (Page 7), 501282 Cards Cast vs. 387142 Registered Voters shows % Turnout at 129.48%.

But... what do "Times Counted" and "Times Blank Voted" mean? That SECOND group of numbers lists "Registered Voters," "Times Counted," "Total Votes," and "Times Blank Voted." (Total = Cards Cast) Total VOTES are NOT more than the registered voters. With 387142 registered voters, Times Counted = 251339, Total Votes = 250295, and Times Blank Voted = 932. And that "Total Votes" number does jibe with the vote tallies for the candidates: there were 2089 votes for Johnson, 197382 for Obama, 48274 for Romney, 2073 for Stein, and 477 Write Ins. Total = 250295.

In other words, actual votes don't exceed the number of registered voters. With 250295 votes vs. 387142 registered voters, it would appear to actually reflect a 65% turnout (vs. 128%).

Those pages don't define those different categories. But given that that first set of numbers does say that more "cards" were cast than number of registered voters, I'd love to know the difference between "cards" cast and "votes" cast!

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Denise B's picture

I don't fully

understand what the "times blank voted" means, but they are clearly showing the total turnout as being much higher than what the number of registered voters actually are, which is a problem no matter what the other columns mean. If I had to guess, maybe they "ballot stuffed" for the candidate that they wanted to win and then adjusted the numbers after, but the "total turnout" column never got adjusted before it got posted. What's really disturbing is that it occurred in every single precinct with the exception of I think only 2. Our voting system is in a shameful state and we have got to come up with a way to address it before the next election. I've been thinking of some ideas, and would love to hear anyone else's input on the topic.

Perhaps it means that

more people turned out to vote than were registered voters. And that alone would certainly raise a red flag. But the actual recorded votes are below the number of registered voters. And so, from what is there, there is no proof of fraud.

Based on what you said, though, I guess what's important is to know that the votes that are shown there reflect the final number. In other words, Boston has some explaining to do.

I agree that something needs to change before the next election. I say we go back to paper ballots ~ something TANGIBLE that can be re-counted manually.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

interesting--

I believe there has been serious voter fraud for some time--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Romney got his KARMA

What comes around, goes around.

No way they'd let that error

No way they'd let that error get out to the public. Too obvious. 135% turn out in some areas.

Southern Agrarian

Denise B's picture

These are not my

numbers, these are the official numbers posted by the City of Boston...

***

Those are official unofficial results.

2014 Liberty Candidate Thread: http://www.dailypaul.com/287246/2014-liberty-candidate-thread

2016 Potential Presidential Candidates: http://alturl.com/mt7tq

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Denise B's picture

I stand corrected...

they do say "unofficial", but were posted by the city nonetheless...with all the brilliant, high-tech people we have in this movement, there's got to be some way we can develop a website or something to track the real vote. This issue is not going to go away and needs to be corrected if we are ever going to get these criminals out of office.

What do I look at?

What do I look at?

Denise B's picture

If you look at the

first column, it lists the number of registered voters and the second column shows actual ballots cast. In each case, the actual percentage of turn out is well over 100%, which is not possible, unless more ballots were cast than there were people actually registered to vote.