• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
acbytesla said:
Just to show how full of crap Tank's claims are.
Washington State,
2016. Hillary 1,742,718 54.3%
2020 Biden 2, 303,430 58.8%
Oregon
2016 Hillary 1,002,106 50.07%
2020 Biden. 1,318,475. 57.00 %
California
2016 Hillary 8,753,788. Percentage 61.73 %
2020 Biden. 9,304,895 * Percentage 64.60 %

*93 percent tallied
Click to expand...

Twenty bucks says the claim was created several days ago when states still had huge chunks of votes left to count.
 
Paul2 said:
Massachusettes had more votes for Biden in 2020 than Hillary in 2016. 2,236,646 to 1,995,196.
Click to expand...

I hate to engage with a racist, but I have to say that, we can clearly conclude, that he was bluffing.

So ST, please explain where you got the information upon which you based your claim?

HINT: It is not a reliable source
 
Meadmaker said:
However, these allegations are being tossed around by a lot of people, including, especially, POTUS. I thought that by having a thread where talk of this is concentrated, it would make the counterarguments easier to find. ST and others will serve up whatever's being tossed around the internet for us, so we don't have to go looking.
Click to expand...
Also, this being a skeptics forum, we value evidence and logic, so when we apply them to the issues of the day, that's of value in and of itself. It's practice doing so, it's modeling, it's providing info for others, as Meadmaker says, it's influencing agnostics and hangers-on, etc.

It's good to be good for the good.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
My goal in starting this thread was not to convince Skeptic Tank. It would be kind of foolish to think that was possible, based on history.

However, these allegations are being tossed around by a lot of people, including, especially, POTUS. I thought that by having a thread where talk of this is concentrated, it would make the counterarguments easier to find. ST and others will serve up whatever's being tossed around the internet for us, so we don't have to go looking.


And if I, or anyone else, did convince Skeptic Tank? Well, that would be an awesome bonus, wouldn't it? I'm just not counting on it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, TBH I'm just repeating stuff here that I see on Twitter and what not, but it's not like you didn't know that.

I have my preconceived notions and biases, these items sound plausible-ish and feed into my desired view of the situation / biases, so I echo them.

No apologies forthcoming.
 
pgwenthold said:
I hate to engage with a racist, but I have to say that, we can clearly conclude, that he was bluffing.
Click to expand...
Bluffing on a skeptic's forum where most are pretty practiced in critical thinking, examining evidence, and the like.

Remind me not to bluff like that.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
It seems odd to me that Biden got fewer votes than Obama or Hillary in every state other than Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
Click to expand...

Dude, you have got to stop believing everything you read on twitter. HINT: it's not the best source for facts, especially if coming from a right wing source. I dunno, it might have something to do with Trump literally being a pathological liar.
 
Meadmaker said:
My goal in starting this thread was not to convince Skeptic Tank. It would be kind of foolish to think that was possible, based on history.

However, these allegations are being tossed around by a lot of people, including, especially, POTUS. I thought that by having a thread where talk of this is concentrated, it would make the counterarguments easier to find. ST and others will serve up whatever's being tossed around the internet for us, so we don't have to go looking.


And if I, or anyone else, did convince Skeptic Tank? Well, that would be an awesome bonus, wouldn't it? I'm just not counting on it.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to do the impossible. He's desperately throwing crap that is served up to him on Qanon and other nutjob news sources on the wall hoping it sticks.

I find that the facts stick better.
 
Childlike Empress said:
Edited by Agatha: 
Edited to remove moderated content
Click to expand...

Edited by Agatha: 
Edited to remove response to same.


No Other said:
Apply Benford's Law to the vote total and activity by precincts. Since Benford's Law is empirical, it is recognized as valid for detecting fraud in accounting ledgers. Math doesn't care if you're Republican, Democrat or Independent...
Click to expand...

Already debunked.

dudalb said:
Hey, guys arguing with a Neo Nazi is a exercise in futility....
Click to expand...

Oh no, it is interesting. In "know your enemy" way.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Minoosh said:
I found the third sentence in the Wiki article on Benford's law amusing:



IOW "in sets that obey the law, the values obey the law."

Tautologies are fun.
Click to expand...
Sure, but elections are the type of process that generates results that fit Benford's law... that's why it's used as a test for election fraud.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
Yeah, TBH I'm just repeating stuff here that I see on Twitter and what not, but it's not like you didn't know that.

I have my preconceived notions and biases, these items sound plausible-ish and feed into my desired view of the situation / biases, so I echo them.

No apologies forthcoming.
Click to expand...

In other words, you'd rather post something you know is likely false than post nothing at all. Fascinating.
 
So it looks like the bigger challenge is going to be finding states in which Biden got fewer votes than Clinton.

Talk about a claim falling apart.
 
In regards to the claim "Biden got fewer votes than Obama or Hillary in every state other than Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin," I'll say he got one thing right:

He used "fewer" correctly
 
Meadmaker said:
At the very least, it would mean that great caution must be used when applying Benford's Law to election results. I wouldn't want to say that there are no sets of election related numbers that would be expected to follow Benford's Law, but any time I see such a claim, I would want to know how they picked the numbers to study.

I know that claims of Benford's Law as an analysis of election results, such as famously in Iranian elections, are considered controversial.
Click to expand...
You still haven't answered the question about what sample size would be needed. This source:
https://www.isaca.org/resources/isa.../2011/understanding-and-applying-benfords-law
claims sample sizes below 500 are where you should maybe not use it. They are an international association of auditors, so they presumably should know what they are talking about. I choose them only because they were the first number I found in a search. If we are talking about samples of 1000+ it seems like the law should apply pretty well.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
Yeah, TBH I'm just repeating stuff here that I see on Twitter and what not, but it's not like you didn't know that.

I have my preconceived notions and biases, these items sound plausible-ish and feed into my desired view of the situation / biases, so I echo them.

No apologies forthcoming.
Click to expand...

That's a problem for you. You believe what you want to believe, not what is necessarily true. It's exactly like the arguments of religious believers. Not a one of them are based on demonstrable facts. Just indoctrination and wishful thinking.

Real skeptics don't do that. They in contrast, challenge their beliefs and ask themselves how they can be wrong.

But you don't do that. Instead, over and over, you post CT after CT and wild claims without merit which are quickly dismantled. And instead of questioning your sources and your beliefs, you just run back to your dubious sources for more. That's a sad and disturbing approach.
 
Last edited:
shuttlt said:
You still haven't answered the question about what sample size would be needed. This source:
https://www.isaca.org/resources/isa.../2011/understanding-and-applying-benfords-law
claims sample sizes below 500 are where you should maybe not use it. They are an international association of auditors, so they presumably should know what they are talking about. I choose them only because they were the first number I found in a search. If we are talking about samples of 1000+ it seems like the law should apply pretty well.
Click to expand...
Didn't someone say it's not a question of sample size, but of the range of values? If all the values lie between 100 and 1000, that's not big enough. It has to be multiple orders of magnitude.
 
What is interesting is that there seems to have been a lot of ticket splitting. The Dems lost some HOR seats, and will not take control of the Senate unless they win both runoff elections in Georgia. If the Dems rigged the election, they did a pretty crappy job of it. I think the real motive is to generate a narrative for a Trump run in 2024. Also, the Trump campaign is in debt. By refusing to concede, the Trump campaign can keep rasing money, and use it to pay off some of that debt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom