• 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.
Dave Rogers said:
That's a classic conspiracy theorist wedge argument. If there's an investigation that finds no significant wrongdoing, that also will be seen as a cover up.

Dave
Click to expand...
By some people, sure but that isn't any reason to help them by implementing a coverup of what might be nothing.
 
Here in Germany we have a completely trustworthy election system. I just have to go across the street (I live in the center of a large city, but even in some village the voting booth will not be far and you won't have to wait). Voting means pen and paper. They asked us to bring our own pen in the local elections last month because of "corona". I frequently meet the people that count my vote on the street. It is a solid system you don't seem to have.

Problem is that the choice we have is among vassals. But that is for another thread.
 
I say investigate, but include states where Trump won and investigate the overall state of fraud and if it could have affected not just this but other elections. Use it as base to check if the entire Presidential voting system is secure and fair.

Include observers in the investigation, this from Sky News UK;

https://news.sky.com/story/us-elect...am-barr-approves-fraud-investigation-12128927

"Election officials from both political parties have publicly stated that voting went well. International observers also confirmed there were no serious irregularities.
 
shuttlt said:
By some people, sure but that isn't any reason to help them by implementing a coverup of what might be nothing.
Click to expand...

There are good reasons why there's a burden of proof before any investigation is mandated; again, some of these are illustrated by the experience with 9/11 conspiracy theorists. When a conspiracy theorist says "What's the harm in starting an investigation, even if there isn't any compelling evidence," they're generally preparing the way for the next step which is "The fact that you agreed to an investigation means there must have been some compelling evidence, so why aren't you publishing it?" I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Trump would resort to such tactics.

Dave
 
The vote count as of what I can find for now is

Biden - 76,343,332
Trump - 71,444,567

The difference being 4,898,765, or the same population as Alabama, or 3.3% of the entire vote. For fraud to have made a genuine difference, it would need to be on an astronomical scale.
 
Dave Rogers said:
There are good reasons why there's a burden of proof before any investigation is mandated; again, some of these are illustrated by the experience with 9/11 conspiracy theorists. When a conspiracy theorist says "What's the harm in starting an investigation, even if there isn't any compelling evidence," they're generally preparing the way for the next step which is "The fact that you agreed to an investigation means there must have been some compelling evidence, so why aren't you publishing it?" I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Trump would resort to such tactics.

Dave
Click to expand...


Which means you put yourself in a position to define what a "conspiracy theorist" is, a position you are not in even by basic logic, Dave.
 
Are we supposed to believe that widescale fraud is relatively straightforward to carry out in the US elections and yet known fraudster and criminal Donald Trump didn't engage in it but Biden did?
 
Nessie said:
The vote count as of what I can find for now is

Biden - 76,343,332
Trump - 71,444,567

The difference being 4,898,765, or the same population as Alabama, or 3.3% of the entire vote. For fraud to have made a genuine difference, it would need to be on an astronomical scale.
Click to expand...

That's the overall popular vote. In swing states the difference is a few thousand or tens of thousands of votes.

Then again, in 2016 President Trump claimed that millions of votes were cast illegally. He provided no supporting evidence for it, and the government's own investigation found no evidence but he still insists that once illegally cast votes were stripped out, he won the popular vote handsomely.

Yes, there will be isolated cases of voter fraud and/or voter error but they will be individual cases. There will be nothing within orders of magnitude of the thousands of votes required to swing the closest swing state much less the millions it would take to change the popular vote.

That doesn't stop the GOP promoting it as a credible problem. Whether they genuinely believe that the Democrats are engaging in voter fraud on a vast scale or they are cynically promoting it is a good question - but 40%+ of the US population currently believe that voter fraud stole the election and literally no evidence will convince them otherwise (which is handy because literally no evidence convinced them in the first place :rolleyes:)
 
The Benford's Law stuff is quite fun but I can't for the life of me see why it would apply to election results.

Let's say you have elections between 2 candidates in 1000 counties of 10,000 in population (I don't know what the US divisions are based on but I presume there is some attempt to make them uniform in size?) then surely the most common results are going to be in the 3, 4, 5 and 6 thousands? it's going to be a bell curve around the mean which is going to be somewhere around 5000 if the two candidates are close.

It seems for Benfords to apply you would need huge variation in voting population size and vote splits and I don't see how that occurs in many elections.
 
Dave Rogers said:
There are good reasons why there's a burden of proof before any investigation is mandated; again, some of these are illustrated by the experience with 9/11 conspiracy theorists. When a conspiracy theorist says "What's the harm in starting an investigation, even if there isn't any compelling evidence," they're generally preparing the way for the next step which is "The fact that you agreed to an investigation means there must have been some compelling evidence, so why aren't you publishing it?" I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that Trump would resort to such tactics.

Dave
Click to expand...
Two answers here:
1. A "conspiracy theory" that only a handful of insignificant loons believe may not be worth investigate, where an identically false idea believed by half the country might be worth investigating.

2. As I keep saying, I believe a similar situation applied in 1960. Nixon had to conduct his own investigation first before an official one was begun, unfortunately for him he ran out of time and it had to be handed over to the new administration to complete and disappeared into the weeds. The "irregularity" there was of the sort of scale Trump would need to find here. An investigation was allowed in 1960 on less evidence than we have now, I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed today.
 
Interesting to point out that the same allegedly fraudulent election that secured a Biden win also saw minor gains for Republicans in the House and, more importantly, put them on track to maintain majority power in the Senate.

The "stop the steal" narrative would make much more sense if the Democrats were on track for a total sweep as predicted by the pollsters, but seems a bit muddy when you consider that the election was a mixed result that included some significant victories for Republicans.
 
Last edited:
shuttlt said:
Who is claiming this? Massive voter fraud was proved in 1960 with 1960s technology.
Click to expand...

It was proved? I thought you claimed that Kennedy was able to suppress the investigation?

Oh, right, mere accusations against your political enemy are taken as proof, if you are a skeptic.
 
Re: Rod Blagojevich's "expertise" on the matter of vote rigging.

Blago was never convicted, nor even accused, of any voting rigging or other illegal electioneering. He has no first hand experience with such schemes.

He was convicted of corruption surrounding his attempts to solicit bribes in exchange for him using his executive power as Governor, which has nothing to do with the election process itself. Given how ineptly run and easily detected this scheme was, there's strong evidence that Blago is not a good authority on the matter of running successful clandestine plots.

He has no special insight into such matters beyond the what any other elected official might.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom