• 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.
ServiceSoon said:
Real evidence... What would that look like? Evidence can be a result of an investigation, not always a prerequisite.
Click to expand...

Here's a hint: referencing a disgraced former Congressman who was (almost) the last of the Rizzo Democrats trying to buy a handful of votes in a local election years later isn't evidence of massive fraud of tens of thousands in a 2020 Presidential election when there was a live video feed of the ballot counting and plenty of GOP Poll watchers.

Its a Poisoning the Well fallacy. I'm sure it played great in Parler.
 
Stacyhs said:
Not only verified but convictions:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1987-03-08-8701180815-story.html

But the major difference here is that we're talking about several states now, not a single city. The complexity in pulling off such a fraud in several states is monumental compared to in just Chicago.
Click to expand...

wareyin said:
But, but it was 27 to 46 votes! Can't you see how 46 or so fraudulent votes 4 years ago proves the 46,000 or so lead is all lies!

/sarcasm
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think I made this point on the last page. Pulling off an election changing voter fraud is far more conceivable in small, local race. But a national election involving several states? Come on...pull the other one.
 
Stacyhs said:
Agreed. I think I made this point on the last page. Pulling off an election changing voter fraud is far more conceivable in small, local race. But a national election involving several states? Come on...pull the other one.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the Chicago info, by the way. Now that the Trumpies are all converging on 1960, or 1982, or Benfords Law, searching for any info is overwhelmed by hits from bad sources. I appreciate you pointing out an accurate one.
 
Not counting all the 2020 Democrat fraud, here's the actual EC map:

eOKQn
 
wareyin said:
Thanks for the Chicago info, by the way. Now that the Trumpies are all converging on 1960, or 1982, or Benfords Law, searching for any info is overwhelmed by hits from bad sources. I appreciate you pointing out an accurate one.
Click to expand...

You're welcome.
 
Cain said:
Not counting all the 2020 Democrat fraud, here's the actual EC map:

[qimg]https://www.270towin.com/map-images/eOKQn[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I don't think that's accurate. The DC electoral votes went to Trump, too. Trump did more for Black people than anyone since Lincoln. Maybe even more. Everyone knows that. Lots of people are saying that.
 
These claims are starting to get pathetic. This is not unusual for the GOP. After the results of 2012 left them polaxed, one brave soul built a website designed to prove that Barack Obama had benefited from massive voter fraud and set up the website to show the evidence state-by-state as you clicked on them.

However, pretty much every entry for a state that Obama won (closely) had nearly identical text with zero actual evidence.

barackofraudo.com is now long gone. Never more that a curiosity.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...ewed-polls-has-sad-sequel-unskew-vote/321274/
 
Stacyhs said:
Not only verified but convictions:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1987-03-08-8701180815-story.html

But the major difference here is that we're talking about several states now, not a single city. The complexity in pulling off such a fraud in several states is monumental compared to in just Chicago.
Click to expand...

An even bigger difference is that we're talking about 2020 versus 1982. The surveillance, oversight, and ability to check numbers and investigate abnormalities is far easier today. A concerned citizen couldn't go to the web site and see voting patterns in 1982.
 
Childlike Empress said:
More than a decade ago I came here to tell you that it is here where the game will be decided. More than a decade later you just watched clown against clown in a rigged game. Do something about it. It's only you who can do something about it.
Click to expand...

I’m sorry, I think I understand a little of what you said. Can you a little more vague? That’s would help. Thanks.
 
Elaedith said:
Not clear why anyone would expect Benford's law of first digits to apply where you are dealing with precincts manipulated to be of fairly uniform size and where the first digit has a severely restricted range.

I found this paper on the second-digit Benford's law and election fraud.

'We focus on the second digit because Brady (2005) and Mebane (2006b) reasonably argue that the more or less constant precinct size can cause significant deviation from Benford’s Law. Imagine a situation with about 1000 voters per precinct and voter preferences between 40 % and 50 % in all precincts of the analyzed constituency. This would result in an over proportional number of 4s as first digits without any intervention of fraud.'


They tested the second-digit law on 2009 German elections where no serious allegations of fraud had been raised and found that the distributions of vote counts returned at precinct level did not consistently follow the assumptions of the law, but simulated vote counts did.
Click to expand...

And the answer of why Benford's law "works", is contained in the paper:

"Raimi (1976) attributes it rather to a mixture of distributions. Finally,Hill (1995) gives the formal proof that “if probability distributions are selected at ran-dom and random samples are then taken from each of these distributions in any way sothat the overall process is scale (or base) neutral, then the significant-digit frequencies ofthe combined sample will converge t o the logarithmic distribution” (Hill 1995: 360)."

However, precinct data doesn't include data with a wide range of distributions, so you wouldn't expect it to follow Benford's Law.
 
Something I see in the Wayne County lawsuit and repeated in other lawsuits or allegations of election irregularities is accusations that people involved in poll counting processes did not adhere strictly to the required processes.

In other words, unpaid or underpaid workers, working long hours, executing a process for the first time, with minimal training, often did not adhere to the letter of the rules.

Yeah? And?

The hurdle that these lawsuits have is that they are going to have to show more than the fact that somebody did something that either actually affected the election, or was part of a deliberate attempt to influence the election. I don't see how they get to that point.
 
I was listening to a local talk radio host tonight as I drove to Costco in the suburbs of Detroit. One of the big complaints is that Republican poll observers were not allowed into the TCF Center where votes were being counted. Of course, they were allowed in, but what happened was that there were always supposed to be a certain number allowed, and that number was supposed to be equal for Democrats and Republicans.

What was happening was that as people left to go home, they were supposed to sign out, and then security would allow in a waiting observer from the same party to take their place. Sometimes, the Republican didn't know he was supposed to sign out, so they ended up short a Republican, as the security guard kept Republicans out, not knowing that there had been a Republican departure.

This proves voter fraud, or something.
 
So the GOP poll watchers were too stupid to follow basic instructions so it’s the Democrats fault and they should give up all the ballots counted there. Sure.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom