Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election

[johnny karate]

I know we quibble here about voter fraud and election fraud here. There is also the question of what you mean by "mass". In any case, I don't know. Result impacting voter/election fraud/"human error" involving 10s of thousands of votes has certainly occurred in the past. I see no reason in principle why it shouldn't have occurred now.

The skeptical position is to not assume that something did occur just because it might occur, in principle or otherwise.

As someone who claims to value skepticism, what specific reason have you seen that indicates mass voter fraud did occur in the 2020 presidential election?

 

[shuttlt]

Prove it.

That is the kind of thing snopes would "fact check". The claim that this board is no longer skeptical is a statement of opinion. Obviously you are going to disagree with it. Almost by definition, the majority opinion of the forum is going to disagree with me. Well they would, wouldn’t they?

Buying into CTs is not skepticism. Every single claim about problems with the election have been dismantled.

Only because your criteria for "debunking" a claim is "can anybody find somebody with a Phd or some other mark of authority who has said it's bunk". Again, chiropractors can find studies and phds to support them. Back in the day we would get into the weeds, actually read the studies and see if there were studies going the other way.

 

[johnny karate]

Can you point to anyone else in this thread who flipped from Al Franken loving Obama voter to what I am now? Looks like I have possibly the best record for being convinced out of stuff of anyone in here.

As for QAnon? Those people are a joke and I’ve never paid the slightest molecule of attention to their stupidity.

I’m sure they appreciate you peddling their talking points for them.

 

[wareyin]

Skepticism means you don't call them debunked on the basis of one study that agrees with you.

Multiple studies have been presented which show Benfords Law doesn't apply. On the other hand, we have you and several other posters who don't understand it but just really really want it to apply anyway.

Skepticism says that the people who continually need the basics explained to them aren't likely to be the ones who are correct while experts in the field are wrong.

 

[No Other]

The section everybody is quoting was added only on the 9th. Below is the version before people started to edit the article to win the argument post election:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.ph...pected_and_not_expected_to_obey_Benford's_law

I'll try and go back and find what it said before all this fun began.

The Benford's Law that some of the "debunkers" cite is "Benford's Law on 2nd digit"(sic)... not Benford's Law.

 

[shuttlt]

The skeptical position is to not assume that something did occur just because it might occur, in principle or otherwise.

There is a difference between not assuming that something occurred, I'm certainly not doing that, and denying something occurred and claiming that the thing has been debunked based on flimsy evidence. You would then be making the truth claim and would need to defend it.

As someone who claims to value skepticism, what specific reason have you seen that indicates mass voter fraud did occur in the 2020 presidential election?

Well, I would say on the one hand that there is the kind of visceral hatred for trump out there that makes it plausible to me that people would feel motivated to do this. Then you have the history of voter/election fraud, it clearly happens and sometimes to significant levels and with considerable organization. In the case of this election, the claims of election watchers being told "no more counting tonight you can go home" and then counting going on. Obviously those and similar stories need to be checked out. You have the 6000 vote data error. If there was enough suspicion to justify looking into things and recounting in 2016, there seems to be more than enough now. The signs of voter/election fraud here seem to be of a similar level to 1960 if my understanding of that election is accurate.

 

[shuttlt]

The Benford's Law that some of the "debunkers" cite is "Benford's Law on 2nd digit"(sic)... not Benford's Law.

Thank you. I hadn't cottoned on to that subtlety in the case.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

I’m sure they appreciate you peddling their talking points for them.

I heard someone reference them yesterday and that person was saying that "Q" himself had urged them to accept Biden's victory.

 

[Meadmaker]

I remember driving to work one morning and listening to Jeff Greenfield being interviewed. I don't remember the year, but it was the first year that Apollo Ono was winning gold medals in the Olympics. The day before there was some controversy when Ono won a gold medal after a Korean skater was disqualified in a controversial call about some rule. I don't remember the number, but we'll say it was rule 10.3.

The conversation turned, for some reason, to sports, and Greenfield was laughing about it. He was saying, "You've got guys all over the country now sitting in bars saying, 'Hey....it's real clear....rule 10.3 says.......' "

This reminds me of that. People who have no clue what Benford's Law is or where it came from will be extremely confident that it proves Joe Biden is a fraud.


But it's a great illustration of how pseudoscience spreads. People who don't know anything about something will say that it's proven because they heard an expert say so on the radio. And, how do they know he's an expert? Well, he's talking math and using a lot of incomprehensible words. That guy understands this really hard math called Benford's Law. He must be smart.


No, no. He isn't. He doesn't understand Benford's Law. If he did, he wouldn't be looking for it in precinct data.

 

[johnny karate]

Well, I would say on the one hand that there is the kind of visceral hatred for trump out there that makes it plausible to me that people would feel motivated to do this. Then you have the history of voter/election fraud, it clearly happens and sometimes to significant levels and with considerable organization. In the case of this election, the claims of election watchers being told "no more counting tonight you can go home" and then counting going on. Obviously those and similar stories need to be checked out. You have the 6000 vote data error. If there was enough suspicion to justify looking into things and recounting in 2016, there seems to be more than enough now. The signs of voter/election fraud here seem to be of a similar level to 1960 if my understanding of that election is accurate.

Okay, those are some reasons you have to believe that mass voter fraud occurred. We’re making progress.

Unfortunately, reasons alone aren’t enough. You need evidence.

Please provide evidence that establishes mass voter fraud occurred in the 2020 presidential election.

 

[acbytesla]

That is the kind of thing snopes would "fact check". The claim that this board is no longer skeptical is a statement of opinion. Obviously you are going to disagree with it. Almost by definition, the majority opinion of the forum is going to disagree with me. Well they would, wouldn’t they?

Not if you present credible evidence and a cogent argument.

Only because your criteria for "debunking" a claim is "can anybody find somebody with a Phd or some other mark of authority who has said it's bunk". Again, chiropractors can find studies and phds to support them. Back in the day we would get into the weeds, actually read the studies and see if there were studies going the other way.

Nonsense, on the other hand, if you only appeal to Joe the plumber or some other uneducated schmuck on say Macroeconomics, I'm going to roll my eyes.

 

[johnny karate]

I heard someone reference them yesterday and that person was saying that "Q" himself had urged them to accept Biden's victory.

It seems that you’ve paid a few molecules of attention to them after all.

 

[dirtywick]

I’ll be honest I’ve never heard of Benfords law. But if Benfords law indicates a fraudulent election, but you are unable to identify any fraud of any sort and the only indication that it was fraudulent was that Benfords law said so, maybe Benfords law isn’t very good at identifying election fraud.

 

[ServiceSoon]

That's hilarious.

(Not you. The fact that a Wikipedia article about an obscure mathematical property is being edited a few days after an election.)

And the definition of a word by one of the many official trustworthy institutions has been altered the day after a Supreme Court candidate used said word during an interview. The phrase which best describes this phenomena is ‘information war.’

 

[shuttlt]

Okay, those are some reasons you have to believe that mass voter fraud occurred. We’re making progress.

Unfortunately, reasons alone aren’t enough. You need evidence.

Please provide evidence that establishes mass voter fraud occurred in the 2020 presidential election.

Why would I need evidence that voter/election fraud occurred? It seems like the kind of thing that one would have to conduct some kind of investigation to confirm/refute in so far as that is possible. One would have to be some kind of ideologically possessed partisan hack to claim it definitely did or didn't at this stage.

 

[dirtywick]

I suppose it’s as ideologically obsessed as relying on mathematical calculations nobody has ever heard of because someone on the internet is referencing them to tell you what you want to hear.

 

[johnny karate]

Why would I need evidence that voter/election fraud occurred? It seems like the kind of thing that one would have to conduct some kind of investigation to confirm/refute in so far as that is possible. One would have to be some kind of ideologically possessed partisan hack to claim it definitely did or didn't at this stage.

If there’s been no evidence that it’s occurred, why would it be wrong to therefore believe that it did not occur?

 

[shuttlt]

Not if you present credible evidence and a cogent argument.

Unpack the logic here. If I am wrong and the forum is truly skeptical, then of course my evidence will fall short. If I am right, and the forum is becoming more and more of an ideologically possessed echo chamber, then my argument wouldn't be successful either. It would be a derail, and a logically pointless derail at that.

Nonsense, on the other hand, if you only appeal to Joe the plumber or some other uneducated schmuck on say Macroeconomics, I'm going to roll my eyes.

I haven't been linking to Joe the Plumber. back in the days when this was a skeptic forum there was a saying that went something like "there is no theory so bizarre that you can't find somebody with a PhD to support it". Scouring the Google for a study or two whose abstract seems to agree with you is not a good way to find out the truth.

 

[shuttlt]

If there’s been no evidence that it’s occurred, why would it be wrong to therefore believe that it did not occur?

There is a difference between saying "I don't think it occurred" and saying "it didn't occur", or "it's been debunked". Also, it isn't true that there is "no evidence". The evidence just isn't conclusive.

 

[shuttlt]

I suppose it’s as ideologically obsessed as relying on mathematical calculations nobody has ever heard of because someone on the internet is referencing them to tell you what you want to hear.

Indeed. I've been aware of Benford's law for several years, I can't speak for the rest of you. It's one of those interesting and surprising bits of maths like the Monty Hall Problem that one remembers because of how unexpected it is.