[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

I read the Examiner article, Rupert (no need to read the WND one as A) WND is crazy town and B) the Examiner article cites the WND article as its source). It's stuff like this that really makes me think right-wing sites just think their readers are idiots (I don't think you're an idiot, Rupert). From the article:

"... in St. Lucie County, the unofficial vote count showed 175, 554 registered voters but 247, 713 vote cards were cast, coming to 141.10%."

Which sounds awful... if one's reading comprehension skills are not good enough to note the writer's use of "cards" not "ballots." And in a quick search of information, in fact, one so short it need go no farther than the comment section below the article itself, a person discovers that the St. Lucie County ballot was 2 pages long, meaning each person cast 2 "cards" though only one vote (one does wonder about the voter who only submitted one page- moron, or just really not interested in down-ticket races?) So, in fact, fewer than 124,000 votes were cast. Math, how does it work again?

The same comment includes a link to a source that breaks down the county vote and none of them went 100 percent for Obama.

So, there's how I explain that- the writer assumes his right-wing readers will blindly accept anything that reinforces their own prejudices, and so feels perfectly fine about lying to them, knowing full well those readers won't say, "This sounds a little preposterous" and do the research to see if the allegation has any merit.

There were several cities in states like Colorado where there are now more registered voters than people. How can you have more registered voters than residents?