Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election

[shuttlt]

Was rerun. It was in 2018.

Yes, an honest to god example of election fraud (not voter fraud) that left behind clear pieces of evidence and ended with criminal indictments for the fraudsters involved. A great example, thanks.

That election was originally tilted by a few hundred illegal votes, which left behind detectable evidence of a crime.

Surely an election fraud scheme that resulted in 10's of thousands of illegal votes will make finding evidence of widespread, systematic illegal schemes easy.

Right, so you are for some reason restricting your claims to voter fraud, while Trump is claiming voter fraud AND election fraud. Fraud can clearly swing elections and can be a significant problem.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Right, so you are for some reason restricting your claims to voter fraud, while Trump is claiming voter fraud AND election fraud. Fraud can clearly swing elections and can be a significant problem.

The moment the Trump team produces evidence of, at a minimum, 10's of thousands of illegal votes, I'll give the claims credence.

Do you honestly believe that Trump's team is making these claims in good faith? Do you think Trump's legal wrangling here will be successful?

Such a narrative will likely be useful for raising money for paying off his campaign debts, and help with Trump's fragile ego by refuting a clear loss at the polls, but I see no path to overturning the election results.

 

[Dave Rogers]

You have no idea what you are talking about. You lifted an incorrect descriptive phrase regarding Benford's Law and passed yourself off as an Expert. Now you write a lengthy paragraph as if you posses inherent mathematical skills.

You are a fake.

Your fallacy is: Argumentum ad hominem.

Dave

 

[shuttlt]

Do you not recognise that some people are unwilling to be persuaded and even the simple act of trying to will only cause them to dig in deeper. That facts and evidence are useless and will only make them angry?

Some people, sure. I don't know about angrier.

And that this is a common and widespread characteristic of the sort of people who continue to support Trump even after four years of blatant, incontrovertible proof that he is an unprincipled, narcissistic, pathological liar with absolutely no regard for laws or for the welfare of the country or anything else aside from adulation ... and his bank account.

Again, that is your view. If you want to win them over you have to start from their perspective, or there is nothing left but power. I would say that the trick to convincing them that they are wrong is to try not to live up to every one of their fears about Democrats. All the lists of people who supported Trump being thrown around and absolute denial of any need to investigate isn't helping.

Nonsense. They can simply be ignored until their intransigence becomes threatening.

This is one of the first things that caused me to question if I was on the right side and start giving the political right and populism serious thought. The idea that you are Right and historically inevitable and don't need to look for compromise appals me. It's a cruel, zealous, puritan, totalitarian way of looking at the world. I'm for small government and living and let living.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

As the results stand now, Trump needs to invalidate 37 electoral college votes from Biden's win to flip the result.

Looking at the states with the closest margins:

GA: Biden up by approx 13,000 - 16 EC votes
WI: Biden up by approx 10,000 - 10 EC votes
AZ: Biden up by approx 15,000 - 11 EC votes

These are the 3 closest elections that would get Trump over 270. Assuming every fraudulent vote was in Biden's favor, Trump needs evidence of 38,000 illegal votes, at a minimum, in the exactly right places to flip the election.

That's the lowest possible bar to clear. The margins in other states are higher. PA flipping means finding 40,000 illegal Biden votes. NV means finding 36,000 illegal Biden votes. Michigan is over 100,000.

Election fraud at this magnitude would leave behind huge amounts of evidence.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I would say that the trick to convincing them that they are wrong is to try not to live up to every one of their fears about Democrats.

The problem with that is that either the Democrats enact the policies they were voted in to enact, thus living up to a small part, but enough, of their fears to result in them being convinced that they're going to live up to all the rest, or do exactly what Trump would have done for the next few years, thus disenfranchising everyone who voted for a different approach. The Republican approach, seen from afar, for the last couple of decades seems to have been to refuse flat out to compromise with the Democrats on anything while excoriating the Democrats for not compromising with them.

The idea that you are Right and historically inevitable and don't need to look for compromise appals me.

Have you ever heard of someone called Donald Trump?

Dave

 

[rambaldi]

Well he mentions his "instincts" yes, but he makes it clear that this is based on his personal knowledge of party politics and operations. .

Probably the usual, "we wanted to do it, let's accuse the democrats"

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Obviously, democratic circles talked about fraud 2004 and 2016. Some of the claims were similar.

The tone is different now.

Speculation: difference in tone comes from right wing background in apocalyptic evangelism.

The other difference is that Democrats could point to Intelligence Assessments of foreign interference and the very public release of hacked documents.
And, of course, the Campaign Manager of one side (not mentioning which one) had to resign because of his Ukraine/Russia connections.

In short, there was a lot of smoke going into the elections.

This time, the most curious aspect of the election is the degree to which it has worked out well, given to much larger number of voters and much more difficult circumstances.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Again, that is your view. If you want to win them over you have to start from their perspective, or there is nothing left but power. I would say that the trick to convincing them that they are wrong is to try not to live up to every one of their fears about Democrats. All the lists of people who supported Trump being thrown around and absolute denial of any need to investigate isn't helping.

We're literally talking about the party that tried to stop the vote before it was even finished. I'm not trying to convince them, because they don't value representative democracy and the rule of law.

 

[shuttlt]

The moment the Trump team produces evidence of, at a minimum, 10's of thousands of illegal votes, I'll give the claims credence.

Fine, but that is going to require an investigation.

Do you honestly believe that Trump's team is making these claims in good faith?

How should I know? I can well believe that he is exaggerating to try and make it harder to ignore the calls for an investigation. That would be in keeping with his style. Whether he is actually convinced there is fraud isn't something I am in a position to know and isn't particularly important to me. Like I say, I believe he uses exaggerated and outrageous statements strategically the same way Kamala Harris uses accusations of racism, if it turns out that he is doing that now it wouldn't change my views on him.

Do you think Trump's legal wrangling here will be successful?

No. Regardless of the merits of his cases, I don't think the courts, or the FBI, or congress are going to want to be put in a position of deciding the election. I think there will be a strong desire to decide by not deciding. He would have to discover something huge to change that. I would say that his best chance would be to make it as painful as possible for the Republican party to sit this out. Like impeachment, ultimately it's a political question, not a legal question.

Such a narrative will likely be useful for raising money for paying off his campaign debts, and help with Trump's fragile ego by refuting a clear loss at the polls, but I see no path to overturning the election results.

Maybe, ultimately I think it depends on whether he finds something spectacular which would then give the courts or congress the political space to decide in his favour. Without that, I think he's done for 2020.

 

[shuttlt]

We're literally talking about the party that tried to stop the vote before it was even finished. I'm not trying to convince them, because they don't value representative democracy and the rule of law.

Didn't they try to stop counting while they were being prevented watching the counting? There are rules and laws in place around the election, the Democrats push hard on the rules and laws as do the Republicans.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Fine, but that is going to require an investigation.


How should I know? I can well believe that he is exaggerating to try and make it harder to ignore the calls for an investigation. That would be in keeping with his style. Whether he is actually convinced there is fraud isn't something I am in a position to know and isn't particularly important to me. Like I say, I believe he uses exaggerated and outrageous statements strategically the same way Kamala Harris uses accusations of racism, if it turns out that he is doing that now it wouldn't change my views on him.


No. Regardless of the merits of his cases, I don't think the courts, or the FBI, or congress are going to want to be put in a position of deciding the election. I think there will be a strong desire to decide by not deciding. He would have to discover something huge to change that. I would say that his best chance would be to make it as painful as possible for the Republican party to sit this out. Like impeachment, ultimately it's a political question, not a legal question.


Maybe, ultimately I think it depends on whether he finds something spectacular which would then give the courts or congress the political space to decide in his favour. Without that, I think he's done for 2020.

Is there any reason to believe that the Trump team has any special knowledge that widespread voting fraud exists and decided the election? What do they know about a public election that the rest of us don't? Why can't they produce any meaningful evidence?

Trump is declaring the conditions of his victory exist and is desperately searching for evidence to support this claim. Sure, it's his right to challenge the results, but there's no reason for anyone to pretend this is a credible claim. The simplest explanation here is that Trump is just making stuff up because he doesn't want to concede the loss.

Mockery and dismissal is the reasonable and appropriate response.

 

[sackett]

Okay, now!

<snip to the juicy part>
Such a narrative will likely be useful for raising money....

Bingo. Old Man Occam is our friend.

 

[bonzombiekitty]

Obviously, democratic circles talked about fraud 2004 and 2016. Some of the claims were similar.

The tone is different now.

In 2004, the concern was over electronic voting machines with no paper trail. I recall people being very concerned over the generally lax security. There was concern that fraud COULD happen, and we'd have no way to really know.

But of course, when the results came in, both sides accepted it.

In 2016, we were shocked that Hillary lost, but accepted it. The concern there was not that votes were somehow rigged for Trump, but that foreign governments got involved in the campaign in support of Trump. On top of that, the Trump campaign knew about it, encouraged or sought it out, as did Trump himself.

 

[shuttlt]

As the results stand now, Trump needs to invalidate 37 electoral college votes from Biden's win to flip the result.

Looking at the states with the closest margins:

GA: Biden up by approx 13,000 - 16 EC votes
WI: Biden up by approx 10,000 - 10 EC votes
AZ: Biden up by approx 15,000 - 11 EC votes

These are the 3 closest elections that would get Trump over 270. Assuming every fraudulent vote was in Biden's favor, Trump needs evidence of 38,000 illegal votes, at a minimum, in the exactly right places to flip the election.

That's the lowest possible bar to clear. The margins in other states are higher. PA flipping means finding 40,000 illegal Biden votes. NV means finding 36,000 illegal Biden votes. Michigan is over 100,000.

Election fraud at this magnitude would leave behind huge amounts of evidence.

I think given that we had a 6000 vote error in one county, it's not impossible to suppose that errors or 15,000 votes couldn't be found state wide if the election way audited.

 

[No Other]

Your fallacy is: Argumentum ad hominem.

Dave

If facts don't work you... go after the Individual.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Trump administration says we should investigate even if there is no evidence?

I thought the stance of Trump's lawyers was that you aren't allowed to investigate unless you have already actionable evidence.

 

[shuttlt]

Is there any reason to believe that the Trump team has any special knowledge that widespread voting fraud exists and decided the election? What do they know about a public election that the rest of us don't? Why can't they produce any meaningful evidence?

Maybe they can and maybe they can't. They are filling court cases and will presumably show what they have then. In so far as telling the public, we saw with the laptop that the dribbled it out a bit at a time. Maybe they will do the same here? I don't know.

Trump is declaring the conditions of his victory exist and is desperately searching for evidence to support this claim. Sure, it's his right to challenge the results, but there's no reason for anyone to pretend this is a credible claim. The simplest explanation here is that Trump is just making stuff up because he doesn't want to concede the loss.

I can buy that he's exaggerating his certainty/the scale of what he can show. I don't see that he is making up the testimony of the poll watchers and others. They might I suppose be making it up, but we are now getting into the territory of claiming a conspiracy to steal the election.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Detroit's sketchy past and present. This article discusses the re-count process in Michigan.

After ballots are counted the first time around, they must be securely stored. If the storage is tampered with, or if the number of ballots reported to have been cast does not match the number tallied in poll books, then clerks may not be able to recount votes in that particular district.

This has been a problem in Detroit in the past. During the Aug. 4 primary, the number of recorded absentee ballots did not match the actual number of ballots cast in 72% of the city's precincts.

 

[ServiceSoon]

Trump administration says we should investigate even if there is no evidence?

I thought the stance of Trump's lawyers was that you aren't allowed to investigate unless you have already actionable evidence.

What a quandary you have constructed there! You cannot investigate unless you have evidence, but you cannot get evidence unless you investigate