【縛雞之見】
就說台灣2012總統選舉的奇特經驗,會再度發生。果不其然!
- The
National Voter Registration Act of 1993
- Provisions
of the NVRA
- Enforcement
of the NVRA
- Voter
Registration Requirements for Sections 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the NVRA
因為美國是「登記」之後才有選舉權,因此,實際上的「登記選民」本來就會會少於公民數。
美國在29個州,有353的郡「登記選民」高過公民數。幽靈票,總共超過180萬票。有的超過87%、77%、71%、58%、1/2、1/3的,非常離譜。
意思是幽靈票(或做票)應遠超過公民數180萬。2019年,光是加州就清除了洛杉磯160萬幽靈選民。
釐清與確認選民是州政府責任,早就有訴訟在進行了,這下糟糕了!但也不一定,美國選制運行的基礎是信任與慣例。
在西洋人的社會裡,是正常的。但在中國人的觀點中,正好是可套利與操作的空間。只要看看美國大賣場的退貨機制,被中國人如何濫用就知道了。
New Judicial Watch Study Finds 353 U.S. Counties in 29 States with Voter Registration Rates Exceeding 100% Judicial Watch 20201016
(Washington,
DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that a September 2020 study revealed that 353 U.S. counties
had 1.8 million more registered voters than eligible
voting-age citizens. In other words,
the registration rates of those counties exceeded 100%
of eligible voters. The study found
eight states showing state-wide registration rates exceeding
100%: Alaska, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Michigan,
New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Vermont.
The September 2020 study collected the most recent registration data posted
online by the states themselves. This data
was then compared to the Census Bureau’s most recent five-year population estimates,
gathered by the American Community Survey (ACS) from 2014 through 2018. ACS surveys are sent to 3.5 million addresses
each month, and its five-year estimates are considered to be the most reliable estimates
outside of the decennial census.
Judicial Watch’s latest study is necessarily limited to 37 states that post
regular updates to their registration data.
Certain state voter registration lists may also be even larger than reported,
because they may have excluded “inactive voters” from their data. Inactive voters, who
may have moved elsewhere, are still registered voters and may show up and vote
on election day and/or request mail-in ballots.
Judicial Watch relies on its voter registration studies to warn states that
they are failing to comply with the requirements of the
National Voter Registration Act of 1993, which
requires states to make reasonable efforts to clean their voter rolls. Judicial Watch can and has sued to enforce compliance with federal law.
Earlier this month, Judicial Watch sued Colorado over its failure to comply with the National
Voter Registration Act. In Judicial Watch’s
new study, 42 Colorado counties—or two thirds of the
state’s counties—had registration rates exceeding 100%. Particular data from the state confirms this general
picture. As the complaint explains, a month-by-month
comparison of the ACS’s five-year survey period with Colorado’s own registration
numbers for the exact same months shows that large proportions of Colorado’s counties
have registration rates exceeding 100%. Earlier
this year, Judicial Watch sued Pennsylvaniaand North Carolina for failing to make reasonable efforts
to remove ineligible voters from their rolls as required by federal law. The lawsuits allege that the two states have nearly
2 million inactive names on their voter registration rolls. Judicial Watch also sued Illinois for refusing
to disclose voter roll data in violation of Federal law.
“The new study shows 1.8 million excess, or
‘ghost’ voters in 353 counties across 29 states,”
said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.
“The data highlights the recklessness of mailing blindly ballots and ballot
applications to voter registration lists.
Dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections.”
Judicial Watch’s study updates the results of a similar study from last year. In August 2019,
Judicial Watch analyzed registration data that states reported to the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) in
response to a survey conducted every two years on how states maintain their voter
rolls. That registration data was compared
to the then-most-recent ACS five-year survey from 2013 through 2017. The study showed that 378 U.S. counties had registration
rates exceeding 100%.
Judicial Watch is a national leader for cleaner elections.
In 2018, the Supreme Court upheld a voter-roll cleanup program that resulted
from a Judicial Watch settlement of a federal lawsuit with Ohio. California settled a NVRA lawsuit with Judicial Watch and last year
began the process of removing up to 1.6 million inactive
names from Los Angeles County’s voter rolls. Kentucky also began a cleanup
of hundreds of thousands of old registrations last year after it entered
into a consent decree to end another Judicial Watch lawsuit.
In September 2020, Judicial Watch sued Illinois for refusing to disclose voter roll data in
violation of Federal law.
Judicial Watch Attorney Robert Popper is the director of Judicial Watch’s
clean elections initiative.
STATES AND COUNTIES
WITH REGISTRATION RATES EXCEEDING 100%
(* means no
separate reporting of inactive registrations)
Alabama: Lowndes County (130%); Macon County (114%); Wilcox
(113%); Perry County (111%); Madison County (109%); Hale County (108%); Marengo
County (108%); Baldwin (108%); Greene County (107%); Washington County (106%); Dallas
County (106%); Choctaw County (105%); Conecuh County (105%); Randolph County (104%);
Shelby County (104%); Lamar County (103%); Autauga County (103%); Clarke County
(103%); Henry County (103%); Monroe County (102%); Colbert County (101%); Jefferson
County (101%); Lee County (100%); Houston County (100%); Crenshaw County (100%)
*Alaska: Statewide (111%)
Arizona: Santa Cruz County (107%); Apache County (106%)
*Arkansas: Newton County (103%)
Colorado: Statewide (102%); San Juan County (158%);
Dolores County (127%); Jackson County (125%); Mineral County (119%); Ouray County
(119%); Phillips County (116%); Douglas County (116%); Broomfield County (115%);
Elbert County (113%); Custer County (112%); Gilpin County (111%); Park County (111%);
Archuleta County (111%); Cheyenne County (111%); Clear Creek County (110%);
Teller County (108%); Grand County (107%); La Plata County (106%); Summit County
(106%); Baca County (106%); Pitkin County (106%); San Miguel County (106%); Routt
County (106%); Hinsdale County (105%); Garfield County (105%); Gunnison County (105%);
Sedgwick County (104%); Eagle County (104%); Larimer County (104%); Weld County
(104%); Boulder County (103%); Costilla County (103%); Chaffee County (103%); Kiowa
County (103%); Denver County (103%); Huerfano County (102%); Montezuma County (102%);
Moffat County (102%); Arapahoe County (102%); Jefferson County (101%); Las Animas
County (101%); Mesa County (100%)
*Florida: St. Johns County (112%); Nassau County
(109%); Walton County (108%); Santa Rosa County (108%); Flagler County (104%); Clay
County (103%); Indian River County (101%); Osceola County (100%)
*Georgia: Bryan County (118%); Forsyth County (114%); Dawson
County (113%); Oconee County (111%); Fayette County (111%); Fulton County
(109%); Cherokee County (109%); Jackson County (107%); Henry County (106%); Lee
County (106%); Morgan County (105%); Clayton County (105%); DeKalb County (105%);
Gwinnett County (104%); Greene County (104%); Cobb County (104%); Effingham County
(103%); Walton County (102%); Rockdale County (102%); Barrow County (101%); Douglas
County (101%); Newton County (100%); Hall County (100%)
*Indiana: Hamilton County (113%); Boone County (112%);
Clark County (105%); Floyd County (103%); Hancock County (103%); Ohio County (102%);
Hendricks County (102%); Lake County (101%); Warrick County (100%); Dearborn County
(100%)
Iowa: Dallas County (115%); Johnson County (104%);
Lyon County (103%); Dickinson County (103%); Scott County (102%); Madison County
(101%); Warren County (100%)
*Kansas: Johnson County (105%)
Maine: Statewide
(101%); Cumberland County (110%);
Sagadahoc County (107%); Hancock County (105%); Lincoln County (104%); Waldo County
(102%); York County (100%)
Maryland: Statewide (102%); Montgomery County (113%);
Howard County (111%); Frederick County (110%); Charles County (108%); Prince
George’s County (106%); Queen Anne’s County (104%); Calvert County (104%); Harford
County (104%); Worcester County (103%); Carroll County (103%); Anne Arundel County
(102%); Talbot County (100%)
*Massachusetts: Dukes County (120%); Nantucket County (115%); Barnstable County (103%)
*Michigan: Statewide (105%); Leelanau County (119%);
Otsego County (118%); Antrim County (116%); Kalkaska County (115%); Emmet County
(114%); Berrien County (114%); Keweenaw County (114%); Benzie County (113%); Washtenaw
County (113%); Mackinac County (112%); Dickinson County (112%); Roscommon County
(112%); Charlevoix County (112%); Grand Traverse County (111%); Oakland County (110%);
Iron County (110%); Monroe County (109%); Genesee County (109%); Ontonagon
County (109%); Gogebic County (109%); Livingston County (109%); Alcona County (108%);
Cass County (108%); Allegan County (108%); Oceana County (107%); Midland County
(107%); Kent County (107%); Montmorency County (107%); Van Buren County (107%);
Wayne County (107%); Schoolcraft County (107%); Mason County (107%); Oscoda County
(107%); Iosco County (107%); Wexford County (106%); Presque Isle County (106%);
Delta County (106%); Alpena County (106%); St Clair County (106%); Cheboygan County
(105%); Newaygo County (105%); Barry County (105%); Gladwin County (105%); Menominee
County (105%); Crawford County (105%); Muskegon County (105%); Kalamazoo County
(104%); St. Joseph County (104%); Ottawa
County (103%); Clinton County (103%); Saginaw County (103%); Manistee County (103%);
Lapeer County (103%); Calhoun County (103%); Ogemaw County (103%); Macomb County
(103%); Missaukee County (102%); Eaton County (102%); Shiawassee County (102%);
Huron County (102%); Lenawee County (101%); Branch County (101%); Osceola County
(101%); Clare County (100%); Arenac County (100%); Bay County (100%); Lake County
(100%)
*Missouri: St. Louis County (102%)
*Montana: Petroleum County (113%); Gallatin County
(103%); Park County (103%); Madison County (102%); Broadwater County (102%)
*Nebraska: Arthur County (108%); Loup County (103%); Keya Paha County (102%); Banner
County (100%); McPherson County (100%)
Nevada: Storey County (108%); Douglas County (105%); Nye County (101%)
*New Jersey: Statewide (102%); Somerset County (110%);
Hunterdon County (108%); Morris County (107%); Essex County (106%); Monmouth County
(104%); Bergen County (103%); Middlesex County (103%); Union County (103%); Camden
County (102%); Warren County (102%); Atlantic County (102%); Sussex County (101%);
Salem County (101%); Hudson County (100%); Gloucester County (100%)
*New Mexico: Harding County (177%); Los Alamos County
(110%)
New York: Hamilton County (118%); Nassau County
(109%); New York (103%); Rockland County (101%); Suffolk County (100%)
*Oregon: Sherman County (107%); Crook County (107%); Deschutes County (105%); Wallowa
County (103%); Hood River County (103%); Columbia County (102%); Linn County (101%);
Polk County (100%); Tillamook County (100%)
Rhode Island:
Statewide (101%); Bristol County (104%); Washington County
(103%); Providence County (101%)
*South Carolina: Jasper County (103%)
South Dakota: Hanson County (171%); Union County (120%); Jones
County (116%); Sully County (115%); Lincoln County (113%); Custer County (110%);
Fall River County (108%); Pennington County (106%); Harding County (105%); Minnehaha
County (104%); Potter County (104%); Campbell County (103%); McPherson County (101%);
Hamlin County (101%); Stanley County (101%); Lake County (100%); Perkins County
(100%)
Tennessee: Williamson County (110%); Moore County
(101%); Polk County (101%)
Texas: Loving County (187%); Presidio County (149%);
McMullen County (147%); Brooks County (117%); Roberts County (116%); Sterling County
(115%); Zapata County (115%); Maverick County (112%); Starr County (110%); King
County (110%); Chambers County (109%); Irion County (108%); Jim Hogg County
(107%); Polk County (107%); Comal County (106%); Oldham County (104%); Culberson
County (104%); Kendall County (103%); Dimmit County (103%); Rockwall County (102%);
Motley County (102%); Parker County (102%); Hudspeth County (101%); Travis County
(101%); Fort Bend County (101%); Kent County (101%); Webb County (101%); Mason County
(101%); Crockett County (101%); Waller County (100%); Gillespie County (100%); Duval
County (100%); Brewster County (100%)
Vermont: Statewide
(100%)
Virginia: Loudoun County (116%); Falls Church City (114%);
Fairfax City (109%); Goochland County (108%); Arlington County (106%); Fairfax County
(106%); Prince William County (105%); James City County (105%); Alexandria City
(105%); Fauquier County (105%); Isle of Wight County (104%); Chesterfield County
(104%); Surry County (103%); Hanover County (103%); New Kent County (103%); Clarke
County (103%); King William County (102%); Spotsylvania County (102%); Rappahannock
County (102%); Albemarle County (101%); Stafford County (101%); Northampton County
(101%); Poquoson City (100%); Frederick County (100%)
Washington: Garfield County (119%); Pend Oreille County (112%);
Jefferson County (111%); San Juan County (108%); Wahkiakum County (108%);
Stevens County (103%); Pacific County (103%); Clark County (102%); Island County
(102%); Klickitat County (102%); Thurston County (102%); Lincoln County (101%);
Whatcom County (100%); Asotin County (100%)
*West Virginia: Mingo County (104%); Wyoming County (103%); McDowell County (102%); Brooke
County (102%); Hancock County (100%)
這是我朋友的回應:
回覆刪除美國的選民登記及投票系統真的很爛,我女兒竟然收到兩張選票,一張寄到她阿公家(因為她剛來唸書時,登記地址是她阿公家,後來才遷到我家)。
美國又沒有國民身分證,只有駕照。在加州駕照連非法移民都可以合法取得。選民登記需要駕照、護照或出生證明,但偽造的一堆。
我的員工給我的社會安全卡,三個人中有三個人是假的,我還被社會安全局問過,但也不了了之。
因此選民登記超過居住人口,真的不意外。再加上可以郵寄選票,郵局常常丟失。何況若有內鬼配合,塞進一堆假選票,不是不可能。
從昨晚到今晨拜登選票大幅增加就是一件很異常的事。但是即使,Judicial Watch去告,我覺得也不會有結果,拜登兒子的各種案件,主流媒體就是一手遮天的壓下來,說「沒有證據」,要期望Establishment裡的官員,那是不可能的事。
被左派及社會主義者污染的社會,真的很難反轉,只會愈來愈像今天的中國或古巴。
這次選舉堪稱"史上最大作弊戰爭"了.....
回覆刪除因為在普選總得票數上,敗燈比川普多,也比它以前的老闆(歐黑馬)多.
以敗燈那個比韓總雞還差的表現,比我還糟的魅力,笑死人的推特追隨數,它的普選票數從那來?
美國的證件制度也是反應在他們當初絕對自由的理念之上
所以美國建國之時就沒有建立戶籍系統或身分證.
最多人持有的"有效身份證明"是駕照沒錯(然而,美國無照駕駛還是很常見)
其次是護照, 社會安全卡或歐記健保卡.
美國的選舉都屬於地方自治事務, 不像台灣有中選會可以監督地方選舉,或統合全國級選舉
這也因此為什麼美國的選舉看起來很混亂, 整個制度也是漏洞百出.
驢子黨州還傳出有監票員被趕出場的事...........
台灣在選舉制度和流程SOP化,目前來看真是比美國好多了....當然啦, 台灣國家小;可是連印尼選舉都比美國有秩序要怎麼解釋?
另外,如果台灣是美國的一州,估計會有是29張選舉人票的第三大州(FL,NY的選舉人票數必須分過來而低於現在的29張)
非美國公民,也可以擁有駕照,不是嗎?
刪除賓州駕照例
美國的投票,在特定時間前,持駕照到(包括drivers' license registration centers, disability centers, schools, libraries, as well as providing for mail-in registration)登記,甚至於投票當天登記,就可以。(這樣,選務機關如何準備選票數量?)
刪除問題是:只有美國公民,才擁有駕照?
駕照就是官方核發的身分證明,駕照表面有姓名、住址、照片、駕駛資格、性別、眼睛顏色、身高體重等資料,沒國籍資料
2012年,約有24%駕照持有者未登記選民。
對, 駕照可以給非公民辦,這本來是為了給長期經商,服務或留學的外國人方便.
刪除根本問題還是美國缺乏一套完整的身份驗證標準,所以只能用各種公發證件充數,卻不能保證持有人是公民還是移民.
但是要搞身分證和戶籍制,對美國人來說也是侵害自由和家庭隱私,這樣會變成憲政上的問題
所以他們要這樣搞, 難度很高......
美國這次還一個很容易作票的點就是,監票是需要申請資格進開票所的.
而且選票都是集中到開票所才開始計算,不像台灣都是就地開票驗票,再上報給地方級選委會,然後再轉交給中選會.
老美在開票和監票方面,真的有很大的漏洞存在,過去太相信流程不會遭到動手腳...
.
但在開驗監票制度都停留在"文藝復興"時代的情況下,現在就變的落後的可笑
每次的選舉開票爭議成了美國的政治傷口,兩黨卻因為各自利益,沒有那個決心根治這個傷口,這次,傷口發炎了.
有匿名網友留言,約略是不懂就不要亂議論。
回覆刪除我已經刪除其留言。理由是,他上綱到國際資本主義云云,離題。他,更應該繼續申論正確答案。
雖然如此,我們還是要評論與討論,目的是學習與發掘真相。
否則,自己就會原地踏步,同時只能相信(所謂的)權威。
美國難的是,「聯邦」是「50個國家+其他」的集合體。
「登記選民」原先是進步的:給黑人等有投票權,用的是最尋常的駕照。而且當時,外國人的影響不大。
現在反過來,外國人可以影響,而且「50個國與國之間不一致」,給予有心人政治套利空間。
2000年時,出現的是機器判讀的錯誤與疏失。
2016年,出現的是,勢均力敵的小州大翻盤現象。
2020年,也是勢均力敵下的紛爭
經過這樣多次的紛擾,美國的制度應該要修正才是,或許是用一個聯邦法,加上國籍檢驗、訂一個「清查截止日」以防止重複等
至於選舉人(如小州大翻盤),國情不同,可傷腦筋了。
台灣的現場公開開票,只要不停電,實在是非常偉大的。
但,在數據傳遞過程,仍不是公開的。這點仍要納入監票系統之內。
無論如何,中國政府與代理人無資格評論別國的「不好」,因為自己完全沒有自由選舉。合理的態度是羨慕與努力。
.
感謝雲程先進詳列‘Judicial Watch’!
回覆刪除①Nevada:
Storey County (108%); Douglas County (105%); Nye County (101%)
②報導在內華達州需留30天以上的註冊選民,才有資格合法投票。已登記為遷出者不能列入合法的註冊選民。
綜合①&②, Nevada 的選票是否需清理出已搬遷出Nevada 州的不合格郵寄選票⁈
道理是這樣,且法律規定:政府有清理的義務
刪除問題是,現實上,可能會「下屆開始吧」
這樣才有4年時間來改正「50國的百年慣行」。
要現在改正?從而改變大選結果?
茲事體大,困難度很高。
https://www.ptt.cc/bbs/HatePolitics/M.1604643796.A.F1D.html
回覆刪除不多說第二句話,有人想看就看看吧。
By Galant