Ohio Officials: Poll Worker May Have Voted Six Times


Melowese Richardson is the Ohio poll worker who admitted to casting two votes in November for President Obama. Now, Ohio officials are investigating if she voted in the names of four other people as well and cast a total of six ballots in the 2012 election, according to Fox News. The investigation is part of a wider one into a number of cases of alleged voter fraud in Hamilton County, Ohio. Richardson says she filled out and submitted an absentee ballot on her granddaughter’s behalf, and her granddaughter has confirmed that claim, saying, “It wasn’t a big deal.” Furthermore:

Three other absentee ballots in the names of different people were submitted to the Board of Elections from Richardson’s address on Nov. 1. Officials say the handwriting on those ballots is similar and that they were all received together, on the same day that Richardson’s absentee ballot arrived at the office. Richardson maintains that some of the other voters live at her house.

Attempts by Fox News to reach Richardson were unsuccessful, but she claimed to the local station that the votes were “absolutely legal votes.”

Ohio Officials: Poll Worker May Have Voted Six Times - By Eliana Johnson - The Corner - National Review Online


Her “excuse” sounds plausible, but even if she is found to be legit, my suspicion is that there was widespread voter fraud anyway. I mean, when BHO, Axelrod, and all the Chicago thugs are involved in a national election (and the Chicago motto is: “Vote early and vote often”), I think it’s a pretty safe assumption that the ballot box was tampered with one way or another.

But are any of these irregularities going to get the election reversed or BHO impeached? Not on this planet.

All it’s going to do is give the MSM and BHO and brethren an excuse to portray it all as “sour grapes”.

They beat us and outmaneuvered us, period (Edit: Notice I didn’t say “fair and square”.) Move on and figure out how to win the next election.

Detection of just how voter fraud was used may be helpful in learning how to defeat it NEXT TIME, but publicizing it gives the opposition a tool to demonize us. They’re good at it already, much better than Republican strategists were last time around, so why . . . FOX . . . give them another arrow in their quiver?

Perhaps it increases the FOX News ratings, but it does nothing to help conservatives when it’s publicized. Keep it to yourself and use it to learn is a better way to do it, IMO.


Her explaination is bogus. No matter who is involved one person may vote only once. She votes by proxy then votes in person fearing the proxy vote didn’t go through? -----can’t do that unless chicago law is different from the rest of the world. She voted for those who cannot go and vote? nope that too is illegal.
All this being said, note that very little is being done, a few words on FOX is all.


Much as I like ya, BobJ, I can’t believe anybody would find:

“I can’t understand these charges against me of voter fraud,” she told Cincinnati’s Channel 9 News. “Have they never heard of . . . overlooking mailing in a ballot or registering to vote at a precinct after you’ve forgotten that you’ve mailed in a ballot or you’ve been told that the ballot may be too late?”

…as sounding anything close to "plausable."
Pause-able, maybe; but definately not, pl-ausable.

…and I haven’t even listened to the vid yet. Can’t wait for that bit of entertainment!


How else do you think Democrats can win an election?


It is very possible to go into the system and vote for the registered voters who didn’t show up.


And then some.

The integrity of the vote is lost. Here it is in black and white:

her granddaughter has confirmed that claim, saying, “It wasn’t a big deal.”

Need anyone say more?


[quote=“2cent, post:4, topic:38300”]
Much as I like ya, BobJ, I can’t believe anybody would find:

…as sounding anything close to "plausable."
Pause-able, maybe; but definately not, pl-ausable.

…and I haven’t even listened to the vid yet. Can’t wait for that bit of entertainment!
[/quote]You’re right. Apparently, I didn’t read it all close enough. So, with some embarrassment (thanks to you, ~grin~), I’ll withdraw my “plausible” comment.

However, everything I said after my mistaken “plausible” word, STILL stands. Particularly my ending comments about thinking Fox News made a political error (but perhaps not a “profit” error) by publicizing this event. Doesn’t really do anything but aid the “demonization” efforts of the opposition, and JoeSixpack isn’t going to all of a sudden abandon Saint BHO if Fox highlights voting irregularities. “Old news”, “sour grapes” and “not credible” is the way the MSM and other BHO cronies will portray it, and the unwashed masses, idiots that they are, will buy it.

That report may have some substance for us conservatives, but until we learn how to defeat voting fraud, publicizing it is only going to make JoeSixpack dig his heals in more and believe more that BHO is Suzie Spotless. Conservative strategists can use these things for learning how to deal with it, but publicizing, as I said, does not serve conservatives well. The MSM and BHO are just going to turn these reports into another tool to demonize conservatives, and those unwashed masses will not disagree.

As far as these kinds of reports convincing “swing voters” for the next election? As long as Fox News is the ONLY one reporting this type of thing, I don’t think conservatives are going to get the mileage out of it as some may think. And if one thinks the MSM is going to report it, or report it without attaching a decidedly “sour grapes” editorial to it, then that person is extremely naive and I hope not a conservative strategist.


I don’t think it’ll change a wee tat for the last election. But in the same token, I don’t mind the news being brought to the fore.
It MIGHT help correct things.

(I can dream, can’t I? :))


You can’t really correct this problem easily. How do you monitor someone voting with absentee ballots?


By keeping, and checking, accurate records?

I realize that some people go around posting just to be horse’s patoots.
You wouldn’t be one of them, now, would you?


I don’t think that’d be easy, though. You’d have to have interstate, cross-referenced records that update in real-time on election day, checked by vote counters as they’re checking the ballots, and updated as they go through them.

So for an absentee ballot, they’d have to check as well as update records after counting each one.

Come to think of it, maybe we should just have SAT-style bubble sheets on election day… Run 'em all through a machine and let the machine flag them if there’s a discrepancy.


That is the very job of electioneers and county clerks.
It’s what they DO.
If they’re not proficient at it, they need to be fired.

Crimminy, it ain’t that hard.

And what’s this nonsense about keeping interstate records? You’re only allowed to vote in the state, and in the precinct, for which you are registered.
The Registrar keeps those records up to date. Again, not very hard.
The electioneers check off, even have you sign your name, as you vote. If your vote has been done via “absentee ballot”, they have a record of that, too. JUST SO YOU CAN’T vote twice.

It’s not all that complicated.
Have you never voted?


I have, but signing your name on election day isn’t going to be communicated to the voting place in the next county using current tech, especially not with an absentee ballot. Voting methods are just severely outdated, and their needs to be intercommunication between all the polling places in the entire country to make it work if fraud is to be eliminated. When you vote, EVERYONE has to know about it.


Trekky, quit yanking my chain.