"In one county alone in Ohio, which was a battleground state, President Obama received 106,258 votes...but there were only 98,213 eligible voters. It's not humanly possible to get 108% of the vote,"
First thing I took issue with was the above. As the link I provided pointed out, he didn't--in fact--receive 108% of the vote. Honestly, of all the registered voters, he didn't even get 50%. He only got 50% of the county because only about 62,000 voted. Still, this wasn't good enough for you.
So, then, it became a matter of the 106k being more than the 98k of eligible voters. First, the 98k number comes from previous statistics. We're living longer and kids are turning 18 in time for election day. Further, many 17 years olds can now pre-register throughout the nation. The fact that number of registered voters went up is of no big fucking surprise. As the Kos piece I pointed out to you points out, it is hard to verify the 98k number without knowing the metric used by the guy that assumed the number. The guy is just modeling based off of census results.
As for other areas with over 100% turnout, a lot of this--like in St. Lucie--is based off of cards processed and not the actual number of votes counted. If you look at the actual number of votes counted, turnout was actually lower this year than in '04 or '08.
Point is that just like the St. Lucie claim, the cry of voter fraud is nothing short of sour grapes and grasping at straws.
But, since you seem to like having your ass owned so badly when you act like a bitch. Get me a fucking soda and suck it:
