The "112 year old voters in North Carolina" voter fraud myth perpetuated by the right.
This was making the rounds on Facebook from folks on the right. They are trumpeting a "story" out of North Carolina that an inordinate amount of voters are voting whose registration indicates they are 112 years old. (Note: Not 111 or 113 or 108, but 112. Keep that number in mind for a minute.) Moreover, the registration of these "112 year old" voters have a much higher Democratic affiliation than Republican affiliation.
Hence, the Republicans are claiming, this is proof positive of voter fraud on the Democrats part. That the Democratic Party and/or Obama campaign are getting voters to go to the polls with fake registrations, all of whom are exactly 112 years old.
Here's the actual story, in case you ever want to rebut.
Prior to 1960, people registering to vote in North Carolina need not actually provide a birth date in order to register; all they needed to do was verify that they were over 18 years old. Many people did in fact provide a birth date. But for those who didn't, their birth date was entered in the year 1900 as a default. And if you do the easy math, anyone born in 1900 would today be.....da duh dah....112 years old.
Hence, there are a fair amount of voters out there who are old, but not 112 years old, who legally registered without needing to provide a birth date and had the year 1900 entered as a birth year as a matter of default. Ruh-Roh!
Here's the link that documents the issue:
http://www.news-record.com/blog/147008/entry/155667
Moreover, you have to consider that these "112 year old" voters registered prior to 1960. Prior to 1960, North Carolina was a heavily Democratic state. This was before the split between contempary Democrats and Dixiecrats (the latter having defected to the Republican Party in opposition to the civil rights movement.) So it's not surprising that the vast majority of the "112 year old" voters are listed as registered Democrats--it's a snapshot of earlier NC politics, and I'm sure a good amount of those Democrats may actually be conservatives who never bothered to switch their affliation after the split of opinion in the Democratic Party over civil rights.
And it's humorous that the same people who claim that there are massive amounts of fradulent "112 year old voters" in 2012 claimed that in 2010 there were nearly as many "110 year old voters" also fraudulently registered. The logic just swooshes over these people's heads.
On a side issue, those who claim the solution is to require Voter ID laws (to counter the enormous 633 cases of document voter imperssionation fraud nationwide over the past 10 years over millions upon millions upon millions of votes cast)--have they ever been in college? Did they ever drink in college? Did they ever hear about fake IDs that people used to drink in college? So Joe VoterFraud wants to vote illegally as Nick Papageorgio. Joe VoterFraud goes to the nearest college, gets a fake ID as Nick Papageorgio, goes to the precinct where Nick Papageorgio is supposedly registered, shows his ID, and votes. How does Voter ID stop this? Why make legitimately registered voters do something so superfluous for something that almost never happens?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Aye, that is what I have been trying to explain to her except in a nicer way 
I mean the screenshot in question doesn't even say what they all claim it says (that the guy in question voted 4 times in *this* election for Obama) it doesn't even say Obama. He coulda been talking about how he voted 4 times in his life before and this time he was gonna vote at X for Y values etc etc.
anyway, apparently I'm too blind due to liberalism to understand the obvious between the lines like they can.