• 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.
The Don said:
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:)
Click to expand...

Got this from twitter, posted a few minutes ago;

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1326245845671481351

"Biden leads

Arizona: 14,746
Georgia: 12,567
Nevada: 36,274
Pennsylvania: 47,483"

Again, for that to be down to voter fraud would require a fraudulent scheme on a scale previously unknown.

The exceptional claim that is down to voter fraud will, of course, require exceptional evidence.
 
Horatius said:
That's the mentality that's in charge in the White House.

To pull this off, they'd have to have this mentality in multiple State Legislatures, and a majority of the US Congress.
.....
Click to expand...

I agree (and hope) it's unlikely. But I note that it wouldn't require a majority of the Congress, just a majority of the states in the House, and that would be Repub; if it comes to a House decision, each state gets one vote. And is there any doubt that the Repub Senate would elect Trump if it could?
 
Olmstead said:
I don't remember Hillary shouting fraud after the election and the Democrats launching a blind search for irregularities.
Click to expand...

Neither do I because it didn't happen. HRC called Trump to concede the election on Nov. 9, 2016. What she did do...because it happened...was claim that there was Russian interference in the election. That is not voter fraud.
 
smartcooky said:
Starting?
Click to expand...

I try to prefilter articles based on where they are coming from and the titles. NBC news makes it easy by highlighting the conservative links in red. I wish that there was a filtering system whereby you could wear glasses that would filter out the conservative posts so that you don't have to see them. But yes, I generally trust that what my prefiltered feed is telling me is true. It seems that when I go googling certain words I sometimes get into trouble with conflicting experts
 
Last edited:
When Bayesian Statistics meets Benford's Law

2t0t1a.jpg
 
Bob001 said:
They don't have to actually exist. They just have to be used as excuses/rationalizations for action. It doesn't appear that there is anything in law or the Constitution that would prevent it.

Mike Pompeo just said he doesn't expect any problems with a transition because the transition will be to Trump's second term. That's the mentality that's in charge.
Click to expand...

So what the Constitution says is that electors (quoting from memory) "shall be appointed in the manner prescribed by the state legislature". I don't know if that's the exact wording, but it's close, and the key phrase is "in the manner".

Right wing commentators, the people I was calling crazy, want that to mean that the legislature can just decide to appoint electors however they wish, including now, after the election. That will never fly. The various legislatures have already prescribed the manner in which the electors will be selected and, having so prescribed, they aren't going to be allowed to change the prescription because they don't like the results.

Mike Pompeo yapping is all well and good, and Donald Trump as well, but in reality, they don't have a prayer, at least going that route.

The one exception I noted with the "too close to call" situation would be a case where the legislature prescribed a method (i.e., an election), but if fraud or other issues were encountered that made it genuinely impossible to determine which set of electors ought to have been seated, then the legislature would have some sort of justification for saying that the previously prescribed method had failed, and there is a deadline, therefore we have to prescribe something new. That would have some prayer of passing.

Not that we should just ignore this sort of posturing. It has to be condemned and/or ridiculed, and they have to understand that such a blatant attempt to steal an election could result in some very, very, bad things, along the lines of armed revolution, but it's just a theoretical concept, really. It won't happen.

So, let them yap, and let them try to present evidence that Biden has stolen the election, or people stole it for him. If they could actually produce such evidence, I'm confident the American people would turn on him, but that isn't going to happen either. In the end, there will be a peaceful transition of power, just with more whining than usual. And if Trump doesn't accept that, then there will be even more drama, but Trump won't have significant support outside of talk radio listeners.
 
Meadmaker said:
So what the Constitution says is that electors (quoting from memory) "shall be appointed in the manner prescribed by the state legislature". I don't know if that's the exact wording, but it's close, and the key phrase is "in the manner".

Right wing commentators, the people I was calling crazy, want that to mean that the legislature can just decide to appoint electors however they wish, including now, after the election. That will never fly. The various legislatures have already prescribed the manner in which the electors will be selected and, having so prescribed, they aren't going to be allowed to change the prescription because they don't like the results.
Click to expand...

Meh. One word: SCOTUS.

My observation as a Canadian is that the US Constitution gets interpreted once in awhile by a Sooper Secret (TM) Magic Decoder Ring.


Y'know, like how it says corporations are people but for a century, negroes, women and Jews weren't.


Meadmaker said:
Mike Pompeo yapping is all well and good, and Donald Trump as well, but in reality, they don't have a prayer, at least going that route.

The one exception I noted with the "too close to call" situation would be a case where the legislature prescribed a method (i.e., an election), but if fraud or other issues were encountered that made it genuinely impossible to determine which set of electors ought to have been seated, then the legislature would have some sort of justification for saying that the previously prescribed method had failed, and there is a deadline, therefore we have to prescribe something new. That would have some prayer of passing.

Not that we should just ignore this sort of posturing. It has to be condemned and/or ridiculed, and they have to understand that such a blatant attempt to steal an election could result in some very, very, bad things, along the lines of armed revolution, but it's just a theoretical concept, really. It won't happen.

So, let them yap, and let them try to present evidence that Biden has stolen the election, or people stole it for him. If they could actually produce such evidence, I'm confident the American people would turn on him, but that isn't going to happen either. In the end, there will be a peaceful transition of power, just with more whining than usual. And if Trump doesn't accept that, then there will be even more drama, but Trump won't have significant support outside of talk radio listeners.
Click to expand...

I'm worried about support in SCOTUS.

I'm worried about support on an Ohio.
 
Last edited:
shuttlt said:
We'll have to see what evidence turns up. Again, political realities will probably mean that Trump loses
Click to expand...

There's a pony in there somewhere, so keep digging.

In my opinion, reality realities is what will mean Trump loses.


I do think that people should always be looking for ways to improve the election process so that there is as little room for doubt as possible. I think this year, because of Covid, things were thrown for a loop as states scrambled on how to do things, and it's unfortunate that it happened at a time when the election was so close. I would hope that some serious people get together to review how elections are done in the United States and how they could be done better, but that faces the same problems that all electoral reform movements face. The people who would have to approve the reforms are the people that won the last election. No need to reform when you are winning.
 
Dave Rogers said:
If it doesn't determine anything, there's nothing to compare. And, of course, it can't be used, as you've been claiming, to determine that a set of election results warrant further investigation.

Dave
Click to expand...
There you go again... attributing thoughts/words/actions to me... that I never said.

You sound like a Trump fan claiming victory when victory is not in sight. If you continue to take the stance that this process cannot work with elections... then you are firmly in the minority.

State mathematically why this will not work with elections.
 
Dave Rogers said:
I already did. Would you like me to explain it more simply?

Dave
Click to expand...
Your response, which I've included below:

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...

Is a matter of law, it has nothing to do with an equivocation fallacy. So yes, please explain how my quote:

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...

is an equivocation. Here is the definition for your quick reference:

Definition of equivocation said:
In logic, a fallacy depending upon the double signification of some one word: distinguished from amphibology, which depends upon the doubtful interpretation of a whole sentence.
Click to expand...
 
There's a new lawsuit filed in Wayne County, Michigan, today. (Wayne County is home of Detroit.) Various allegations by at least one employee and a few poll watchers. I heard about in on Hannity, so of course I don't trust him to report it accurately.

I found myself in the car, so I decided to listen to his monologue. Thirty minutes of word salad. Throw everything in the mix just in case something sticks. What I especially liked was his quite self righteous tone about how it was so very important to have trust in elections, while he was trying to tear down trust in elections.


Oh, well. I agree with Mitch McConnell on one thing. Donald Trump and everyone else has a 100% right to file lawsuits and contest the results, within the law. And judges have a 100% right to dismiss them without trial if there's no case presented worth listening to.

I'll try to examine the Wayne County suit. Hannity quoted the Detroit Free Press, so it should be pretty easy to find info.
 
Meadmaker said:
There's a pony in there somewhere, so keep digging.

In my opinion, reality realities is what will mean Trump loses.


I do think that people should always be looking for ways to improve the election process so that there is as little room for doubt as possible. I think this year, because of Covid, things were thrown for a loop as states scrambled on how to do things, and it's unfortunate that it happened at a time when the election was so close. I would hope that some serious people get together to review how elections are done in the United States and how they could be done better, but that faces the same problems that all electoral reform movements face. The people who would have to approve the reforms are the people that won the last election. No need to reform when you are winning.
Click to expand...
Somehow Florida seems to have improved. Maybe creating a huge embarrassing stink is a route to fixing them?
 
Meadmaker said:
Right wing commentators, the people I was calling crazy, want that to mean that the legislature can just decide to appoint electors however they wish, including now, after the election. That will never fly. The various legislatures have already prescribed the manner in which the electors will be selected and, having so prescribed, they aren't going to be allowed to change the prescription because they don't like the results.
Click to expand...
A former SCOTUS ruled that they have to pass a law to change how electors will be appointed, and that law needs to be signed by the governor (which won't happen in PA), and perhaps that it has to happen before the election to which the law would apply.

But that's a former SCOTUS. I'm still sleeping with one eye open. We've been burned so often during the last four years thinking that a commitment to democracy will save us. (Admittedly, we've won some of those, too.)
 
Here's an article on the Wayne County lawsuit:

https://www.freep.com/story/news/po...roit-lawsuit-misconduct-elections/6218612002/


Summary: Lots of allegations. Not a lot of meat, but there are one or two things that ought to be looked into, and they will be. How a judge handles it might be interesting to see. It looks like lots of variations on, "I think I saw this happen and it didn't seem right to me, so don't certify the election." I don't think there's much of a chance the lawsuit will succeed.

The lawyer for the plaintiffs was also the lawyer for Michigan's most famous barber from this spring. After the lockdown order closed barbershops, this barber reopened, in violation of the executive order lockdown. He became a cause celebre among the right wing, complete with armed militia types standing guard outside his barbershop. (I honestly don't remember what came of the lawsuit, or the barber.)
 
Paul2 said:
A former SCOTUS ruled that they have to pass a law to change how electors will be appointed, and that law needs to be signed by the governor (which won't happen in PA), and perhaps that it has to happen before the election to which the law would apply.

But that's a former SCOTUS. I'm still sleeping with one eye open. We've been burned so often during the last four years thinking that a commitment to democracy will save us. (Admittedly, we've won some of those, too.)
Click to expand...

I would be lying if I said I was 100% confident SCOTUS of today would not pull some shenanigans. I don't expect it, and they shouldn't, but I'll sleep easier if the suits never get to them.
 
Meadmaker said:
I would be lying if I said I was 100% confident SCOTUS of today would not pull some shenanigans. I don't expect it, and they shouldn't, but I'll sleep easier if the suits never get to them.
Click to expand...
Right. If it does get to them, I'm pinning my hopes on Roberts and Gorsuch not being hyper-partisan and bringing rationality to the issue.
 
Nessie said:
Got this from twitter, posted a few minutes ago;

https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1326245845671481351

"Biden leads

Arizona: 14,746
Georgia: 12,567
Nevada: 36,274
Pennsylvania: 47,483"

Again, for that to be down to voter fraud would require a fraudulent scheme on a scale previously unknown.

The exceptional claim that is down to voter fraud will, of course, require exceptional evidence.
Click to expand...

Agree. They would still have to have a nationwide fraud scheme because just committing this kind of fraud in targeted states would be too easy to spot. The vote for Biden nationwide appears to have caught these swing states and taken them along for the ride.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom