this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2025

66 points (98.5% liked)

United States | News & Politics

9110 readers

302 users here now

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

pangyuehung@lemmy.ml

yogthos@lemmy.ml

Colorado woman found guilty of voter fraud for casting ballots for late ex-husband and son (apnews.com)

submitted 5 months ago by FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world to c/usa@lemmy.ml

15 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Elizabeth Ann Davis, 61, was convicted Wednesday of two counts of forgery and one count of impersonating an elector for submitting mail ballots for them in the 2022 general election. Voter fraud is generally rare and detectable since the nation’s election processes provide many safeguards, according to current and former election officials.

Voters are required to put their signature on ballots before returning them.

Davis, a Republican, has previously been convicted of forgery and other offenses in Florida and Colorado, a press release from the office of District Attorney George Brauchler said.

top 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 42 points 5 months ago (1 children)

TLDR: She's a Republican.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 26 points 5 months ago (2 children)

It's always the ones you expect the most

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 20 points 5 months ago (1 children)

At this point, I just assume that the people who are loudest in opposition of any given issue are participating in that issue themselves.

[–] DScratch@sh.itjust.works 12 points 5 months ago

It’s straight out of the National Socialist playbook.

Then think about “Pizzagate”

[–] eldavi@lemmy.ml 9 points 5 months ago

every accusation is an admission.

[–] switcheroo@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago

Cool one shithead MAGAt. How about you investigate the funny business the orange cancer was talking about in reference to muskrat "helping him"? That sounds like more important cases of voter fraud.

[+] limer@lemmy.ml -7 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Americans are so silly, they understand when a person fakes one vote, and are oblivious to when a person fakes many votes.

Quick to trust mysterious systems, forever paranoid about people.

Reminds me if the saying one death is tragic, a million deaths is a statistic

[–] FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago (1 children)

and are oblivious to when a person fakes many votes.

There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, which is why these stories of actual voter fraud only affect a handful of votes and usually get blasted out in the news.

[–] Chulk@lemmy.ml 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I think the person you're replying to might be trying to make the distinction between how Americans perceive voter fraud versus how they perceive election fraud.

Americans will see one case of voter fraud and believe that it's widespread. Whereas, most Americans will call you a conspiracy theorist if you suggest that an election result was altered systemically (election fraud).

Idk though, their post was poorly worded, so you could be right.

[–] limer@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago

Yes, that is what I meant, it was poorly worded

[–] limer@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 months ago

Americans get voter fraud ( fraud by the voter), but are blind to electoral fraud ( fraud by those running the election or outside people taking advantage of bad practices).

I think voter fraud in America is rare. But electoral fraud has a rich history in the USA going back generations.

Some electoral fraud is easy to understand in history. Like when white landowners in the south,after reconstruction, threw away many black voter’s ballots. Or during the big boss era during the early 1900s where people were paid to vote multiple times or in the wrong districts.

Certainly during the last 30 years electoral fraud by voting machines is the big thing. Using them provide so many ways to change votes: the owners can do it without employees knowing. Admins can log in and flip votes; people with stolen keys can change stuff; hackers can hack.

And this was demonstrated aptly, many times during the 1990s and early 2000s in hacker and tech conferences attended by thousands.

But there started to be a divorce between the reality of the situation and political pundits who claimed things were secure. So, anyone with the actual technical knowledge who knows it’s a bad idea to not use only paper ballots are not listened to by those who think voting is effective for real change.

And I was stumped about this denial until I understood it in socialist terms.

[–] Bonesince1997@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Hey super sleuth, why don't you enlighten us since you're blessed with the genius.

[–] limer@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

It honestly does not take much intellect to decide if one should trust a system, that one does not understand, for ballot counting.

In most countries there is no need for experts to explain how ballots work.

But here, even specialists are locked out of the inner workings unless they are employed by the private company, and the absolute majority of them have no access to the details.

[–] Bonesince1997@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I'll give you that things are written and presented often in confusing ways, done intentially too, but there is access granted to overseeing elections.

[–] limer@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago

Which systems do you believe have proper oversight? There are many counting methods depending on state and counties. Some paper ballots are used without a machine.

I’m interested in what people think about specific systems