• 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.
shuttlt said:
I think the argument is about whether the result represents the voice of the people. You are assuming your own conclusions.
Click to expand...

If the question is about "the voice of the people," Biden won almost five million more votes than Trump. Biden won more votes than any previous candidate in history. "The people" are speaking pretty loudly.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
Why do I get the feeling that this kind of counting is going to continue right up until November 2024?
Click to expand...

I don't think so. This will fade. Either that, or this is the end of democracy in the United States. In which eventuality, votes won't matter.
 
shuttlt said:
The rules are not necessarily 100% precise, or consistent. I believe Trump argued before the election that late ballots shouldn't be counted based on a constitutional argument and the supreme course in their wisom decided not to make a decision until after the election.


I think Trumps argument is that the rules say he won. You are disagreeing with him about the rules. The way that disagreement gets decided seems to be first legally within the state, then the supreme court, then politically in the state, and then politically in congress.
Click to expand...

The rules that Trump claims were broken are rules that exist only in his head, with the primary, but unspoken one being that he has to win.
 
Last edited:
slyjoe said:
Did you run a Benford Law analysis on 2016 results, hmmm? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Frankly, I have absolutely no idea WTF Benford's law is or what people are talking about. I also don't believe that almost anyone bringing it up to throw shade on the election do either. I'm not a mathematician or statistician. It sounds like jibber jabber to me.
 
CORed said:
The rules that Trump claims were broken are rules that exist only in his head, with the primary, but unspoken one being that he has to win.
Click to expand...
In that case, I assume he will be unsuccessful.
 
Bob001 said:
If the question is about "the voice of the people," Biden won almost five million more votes than Trump. Biden won more votes than any previous candidate in history. "The people" are speaking pretty loudly.
Click to expand...

Yes but if the millions of illegal votes are stripped out...,:rolleyes:
 
johnny karate said:
As far as I know, there is no evidence that you are a pedophile.

But I guess there should be an investigation to be sure. Agreed?
Click to expand...
The police should only investigate if you or somebody else makes that claim. I would even go as far as saying you have duty to report what you know about me or anybody else being a pedophile. If you swear on your testimony that would lend even more validity to your claim. The police don't randomly think up possible crimes and investigate. Something or somebody prompts them to investigate. That is why these claims of investigating invisible dragons and such are disingenuous attempts at mockery. Police investigate on hearsay all the time.

Dave Rogers said:
Your fallacy is: equivocation. An official investigation cannot be mandated unless sufficient evidence is offered, which may have been uncovered by a private organisation investigating on its own behalf.

Dave
Click to expand...
You didn't read the historical example of actual election fraud that took place in 1982 Chicago, did you? Those true events and investigation will allow you to speak about voter fraud investigations with more intelligence of how things have actually occurred, and less posturing, narrative selection, and general tomfoolery.

Equivocation is calling two different things by the same name. Here is a equivocation from Wiki:
Wiki said:
Since only man is rational.
And no woman is a man.
Therefore, no woman is rational.[1]
Click to expand...

Show me how my statement below is an equivocation.

ServiceSoon said:
What a quandary you have constructed there! You cannot investigate unless you have evidence, but you cannot get evidence unless you investigate :confused:
Click to expand...
 
acbytesla said:
Frankly, I have absolutely no idea WTF Benford's law is or what people are talking about. I also don't believe that almost anyone bringing it up to throw shade on the election do either. I'm not a mathematician or statistician. It sounds like jibber jabber to me.
Click to expand...

It's a perfectly respectable piece of statistical analysis, and in the right situation a useful one in detecting whether data is suspicious enough to warrant further investigation. It would be extremely unsafe to consider it sufficient evidence for anything on its own, and there is quite clearly not a consensus amongst experts that it's applicable to election results, as evidenced by the papers referenced upthread. No Other clearly thinks otherwise, but mathematical proof is not determined by who shouts the loudest.

Dave
 
What are the specifics behind Rudy Giuliani's claim of 300,000 illegal votes in Philadelphia?

Is there hard evidence, or is it the usual baseless speculation?
 
By the way, I skipped to the last page of the thread from about page 8 and found the content indistinguishable. As I do with some other threads, I shall now put it on semi-ignore, clicking only to the last post instead of first new post!
 
This thread has been focused on the lame attempts of accusations in the media, but is there a good list of the actual court cases in the works?
 
Dave Rogers said:
Since you claim expertise in this, let's construct a hypothetical.
Click to expand...
I do not claim to be an Expert.

Suppose there is an election in which all counting districts are chosen so that the expected vote total from each is 1000 votes, and the votes counted fall within 10% of this figure. Suppose also that the two candidates each poll close to 50% overall, and the variance between counting districts turns out to be within 20% of this figure (i.e. all districts report between 30/70 and 70/30 votes for all candidates). Based only on the above information, would it be possible to use Benford's Law on the first digits of the numbers of votes cast to determine whether the results were, or were not, suspect?

I'll supply the answer later, if anyone hasn't got it immediately.

Dave
Click to expand...
Benford's Law does not determine anything; it is a tool to be used as a comparison.
 
Dave Rogers said:
It's a perfectly respectable piece of statistical analysis, and in the right situation a useful one in detecting whether data is suspicious enough to warrant further investigation. It would be extremely unsafe to consider it sufficient evidence for anything on its own, and there is quite clearly not a consensus amongst experts that it's applicable to election results, as evidenced by the papers referenced upthread. No Other clearly thinks otherwise, but mathematical proof is not determined by who shouts the loudest.

Dave
Click to expand...
You are correct when you say proof is not determined by who shouts the loudest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom