• 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 don't know. I would have thought if there was such evidence about 2016 we might have heard about it by now. 2016 clearly can't be undone at this point, but if there is anything like the evidence for cheating in 2016 that there is in 2020 then I'd be in 100% agreement with you that it should be looked into and acted on accordingly.


That seems like a pointless question. If last time the process was corrupt, we should keep it corrupt this time as well because counting the vote honestly this time would be unfair?


No. It could have been corrupt in 2016, I don't know. If it was then the solution isn't to keep it corrupt in 2020.


OK, so there wasn't evidence of voter fraud in 2016? I think we should concentrate on 2020 rather than going through all the elections from 1788 first in case elections have been cheated in the past so it should be allowed to continue. The issue is whether there is any issue with THIS election.
Click to expand...

Crime is down over the last 30 years, but perception of it is higher. More noise doesn't mean much. I do not think your positions are appropriately tempered by the limitations of perception and confirmation bias.
 
This has gotten ridiculous. All these bozos across the USA bleating about how the election is stolen, somehow, we don't know how, but we need months of investigation before we proceed because that's only fair...

We've been oh so nice, by gently suggesting that they're mistaken, and that they have no evidence to make such accusations about the election, etc, etc, etc.

They deserve neither our time, nor our respect, re: their endless requests. They've been asked to put up or shut up, and they won't do either. So, from now on, I say that we need to start calling these people what they really are.

Liars.

Anyone going on and on about how the election was stolen, with no evidence, is a liar.
 
Last edited:
pgwenthold said:
I will go back to a comment I made recently, but perhaps more narrow, and so now to make it more broadly:

All these standards that are being applied to this nit-picky accusations need to be applied to the 2016 election, as well.

Hey shuttit, how many poll observer malfeasance affidavits were there in 2016? Is 70 a large number?

Is there any reason to think that the number of reported "violations" this year is any different from what has happened in the past?
If the claim is that THIS election is rife with voter fraud, you need to show that THIS election is different from 2016, which was certified and official.

And no, Trumps claims that there was voter fraud in 2016, too, don't count as evidence (his own commission failed to find any)
Click to expand...

I would expect a lot more this year, actually.

For one thing, mail in ballots are easier to screw up, and harder to count. I actually assume that Biden lost votes this year due to voter errors with their mail in ballots.

For another thing, you don't normally have these gigantic processing centers very slowly counting these mail in ballots, which are a lot slower to count than in-person votes. One problem that causes is just the slowness of the count, but a bigger problem is what we saw in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, where in person votes are counted first, giving Trump a lead, while mail-in ballots are counted last, letting Biden slowly catch up. That creates the problem that was described in the Detroit Free Press article I linked. One side (in this case Republicans) think they are winning, and then they slowly see them start losing. In Detroit, that resulted in partisan calls going out saying, "Come to the vote counting center! The other side is trying to steal the election!!!!!" The people arriving are primed for combat, and ready to see vote fraud whether or not it exists.

ETA: However, your question is still valid. I described my expectations, but the first question that ought to be asked is whether or not it's real. Is this year any different? I would expect it to be, but people really should verify that.
 
Last edited:
shuttlt said:
I don't know. I would have thought if there was such evidence about 2016 we might have heard about it by now. 2016 clearly can't be undone at this point, but if there is anything like the evidence for cheating in 2016 that there is in 2020 then I'd be in 100% agreement with you that it should be looked into and acted on accordingly.
Click to expand...

But no. If there was "anything like the evidence for cheating in 2016" like there is now, it would show that the evidence for cheating this year is not significant enough to warrant invalidating the election, since the 2016 election was officially certified.

You claim there is a lot of evidence for cheating. I am challenging you to show that that there is anything different this year from any other year.


That seems like a pointless question. If last time the process was corrupt, we should keep it corrupt this time as well because counting the vote honestly this time would be unfair?
Click to expand...

The last election was officially certified by the election boards and by everyone who matters. There is no basis to claim it was corrupt.

No. It could have been corrupt in 2016, I don't know. If it was then the solution isn't to keep it corrupt in 2020.
Click to expand...

If it was too much corrupt in 2016, why was it certified?


OK, so there wasn't evidence of voter fraud in 2016? I think we should concentrate on 2020 rather than going through all the elections from 1788 first in case elections have been cheated in the past so it should be allowed to continue. The issue is whether there is any issue with THIS election.
Click to expand...

There are always "issues" in ANY election. That does not mean that there is voter fraud. There are ballots that get disputed, and there are always ballots that are on the border o f whether they should be counted or not.

In terms of whether the election is legitimate or corrupt, that means nothing. If the presence of "issues" automatically means an election is illegitimate, then there has never been a legitimate election ever. It's a worthless standard.
 
shuttlt said:
I don't know. I would have thought if there was such evidence about 2016 we might have heard about it by now. 2016 clearly can't be undone at this point, but if there is anything like the evidence for cheating in 2016 that there is in 2020 then I'd be in 100% agreement with you that it should be looked into and acted on accordingly.


That seems like a pointless question. If last time the process was corrupt, we should keep it corrupt this time as well because counting the vote honestly this time would be unfair?


No. It could have been corrupt in 2016, I don't know. If it was then the solution isn't to keep it corrupt in 2020.


OK, so there wasn't evidence of voter fraud in 2016? I think we should concentrate on 2020 rather than going through all the elections from 1788 first in case elections have been cheated in the past so it should be allowed to continue. The issue is whether there is any issue with THIS election.
Click to expand...

So, we can skip 1960 and 1982? That's a relief.
 
The Republican Party is pretty strongly dependent upon conspiracy theories to maintain support. Since the Bill Clinton era, each democrat president or serious candidate has had a sort of a primary CT ginned up against them.

Bill Clinton: Whitewater

Al Gore: Climate change (opponents denied the existence thereof)

John Kerry: Swift Boat

Obama: Birtherism

Hillary: He emails, her husband

Now it is Biden's turn. The catch is that the GOP spin machine got off to a false start. He was supposed to be senile/frail - remember that? But now they've got this. This will be the CT Theme for the Biden presidency.

Like CORed said, this is the Birtherism of the Biden presidency. With that history, they still wonder why we don't take this super seriously?

And the thing is, we do take this somewhat seriously - I don't hear anybody objecting to recounts, or suggesting that none of the allegations should be looked into. It is just that based on the PAST HISTORY OF REPUBLICAN CT MONGERING we expect that none of the investigations will turn up anything significant enough to come anywhere near overturning a single state. Voting irregularities happen in every large election, we'll find a few. But no more than normal. We'll investigate, we'll find a few. And Joe Biden will still get sworn in, and we'll adjust voting procedures to make things even more secure, just as we've been doing at least since Bush v Gore.
 
shuttlt said:
OK, so there wasn't evidence of voter fraud in 2016? I think we should concentrate on 2020 rather than going through all the elections from 1788 first in case elections have been cheated in the past so it should be allowed to continue. The issue is whether there is any issue with THIS election.
Click to expand...

Are there any issues with this election?

If so, what evidence do you have to support this claim?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Well let's just start with this inaccurate description.

ACORN paid people by the registration to register voters. Some of those paid persons filled out fraudulent registrations. IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW HERE, NO ONE VOTED WITH THESE FRAUDULENT REGISTRATIONS.

ACORN was not allowed to not send those registrations in. IIRC they warned the voter registration office the registrations were suspect.
I know of no one who went to jail. You're going to need a source to confirm that. Nothing in your link says anything about your claims about ACORN.

Perhaps you need to make it clear you are talking about two different things instead of trying to insinuate guilt by association or rather falsely implying these two things are even remotely related.
Click to expand...
Is your claim that ACORN did nothing wrong? And that ACORN themselves informed election officials that they submitted fraudulent registration forms? I find that at odds with reality since in this particular case in Seattle:
News Talk said:
Clifton Mitchell, the ringleader of the scheme, spent three months in prison, and four of his co-conspirators were sentenced to jail time. ACORN itself was fined $25,000.
Click to expand...
How do you know that no fraudulent votes were placed? Did election officials check every fraudulent registration had not been used to cast a vote? I wonder how long ACORN had been doing this? My take-away is that absentee ballots are more susceptible to fraud than in-person votes.

I got to searching for a reference on the ACORN voter fraud that took place in Seattle and found these gems:

Nevada:
Fox News said:
LAS VEGAS -- A former supervisor for the defunct political advocacy group ACORN agreed to a plea deal Monday in a case alleging that canvassers were illegally paid to register Nevada voters during the 2008 presidential campaign.

Amy Busefink, 28, of Seminole, Fla., pleaded the equivalent of a no-contest in state court to two misdemeanor counts of conspiracy to commit the crime of compensation for registration of voters. Her Alford plea acknowledged the state had evidence for a conviction at trial.
Click to expand...

Wisconsin:
maciverinstitute said:
Kevin Clancy, a former ACORN voter registration worker, has been sentenced to 10 months in a Wisconsin jail for vote fraud.
Click to expand...

What ACORN did was systematic election fraud across multiple states. There are many other prosecutions which took place in states besides the examples I have presented. This is an epidemic of sorts & engenders the dangers of absentee ballots.
 
Ambrosia said:
That's Matt Parker. He's an Aussie mathematician that lives in the UK. He's pretty good though.

If you are a numbers nerd his videos are usually a good watch and if you like that kind of thing I can also recommend Numberphile. Another Youtube channel in the same mould.
Click to expand...

Parker's video certainly helped me to understand Benford's law. Trump supporters were going on and on about it. How it alone proved election fraud. I was skeptical that a mathematical theory by itself could prove this claim. Most of the posts left me scratching my head.

From my understanding Benford's law is useful in identifying possible anomalies in statistics. But the theory never ever proves the meaning of those possible anomalies. You always have to look deeper into the data. Parker showed that the size of the precincts explains why Benford's law doesn't identify a problematic anomaly in this case. The results actually show exactly what we should expect.

Numbers are great. Unfortunately, people lie with them.
 
Vixen said:
Election officers nationwide: 'There is no Fraud' - see NY Times front page attached.
Click to expand...

This was posted earlier and got lost in the deluge. It deserves a second look.

Hundreds - if not thousands - of election officials from all over the country, at every level of government, both Republican and Democrat, and not one has reported anything that would substantiate claims of election fraud.
 
johnny karate said:
Are there any issues with this election?

If so, what evidence do you have to support this claim?
Click to expand...
Apart from the evidence you are ignoring? I would assume more evidence will be coming out over the next few days for you to also ignore.
 
pgwenthold said:
...snip..

There are always "issues" in ANY election. That does not mean that there is voter fraud. There are ballots that get disputed, and there are always ballots that are on the border o f whether they should be counted or not.

...snip...
Click to expand...

And in one of the cases linked to in this thread the lawyer for the plaintiff categorically made it clear that the suit was not about election fraud. The argument in that case was that 592 mail in votes were allowed to be counted when the elector hadn’t hand written their address and it was a requirement that they’d hand write in their address. The point the judge will have to decide on is did the address have to be included, if so does a pre-printed address count (some of the envelopes were sent out with the address preprinted). And then there are other considerations e.g. did the instructions to the voters make this clear, did this then amount to an essential lack such that a voter should be disenfranchised when following the official instructions they had been given? (The SC by the way decided that someone should not be disenfranchised when they followed official but wrong instructions toons.)

Now the judge in that case seemed to me to be rather predisposed to agree with the plaintiffs side, as I was typing this I realised I wasn’t taking into account that you do have “republican” and “democrat” judges in the USA so perhaps that is why they seemed predisposed? Is possible to find out if the judge is a republican or a democrat judge? But I would be surprised if the judge ruled in favour of the Plaintiffs.
 
shuttlt said:
Not that you care about claims, but here is another similar lawsuit:
https://cdn.donaldjtrump.com/public...rump-v.-benson-w.d.-mich.-complaint-final.pdf

If something substantial doesn't come out refuting the claims from the poll watchers, and nothing comes of this, then I don't see what the purpose of having poll watchers is.
Click to expand...

Matthew Seeley. That's this guy, right?

Eric Ostergren has already had one meritless suit thrown out this week.

Marian Sheridan was an organiser of the anti-Whitmer protests that prevented ambulances from entering the hospital, and is the grassroots vice-chair of the Michigan Republican Party.

If I were an invested party, I'm not sure that these are the people I'd be throwing my money behind.
 
shuttlt said:
Apologies Darat, I don't have ring binders of this stuff.
https://youtu.be/lysRM0q4ikM?t=39
That's Giuliani saying 50-60 poll watchers. I heard he had since upped that to 70, but I don't have a source of Giuliani saying it.
Click to expand...

If Giuliani says so, it must be true. The same Giuliani who said it was 'mathematically impossible' for Biden to overtake Trump in the vote counting? That one?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom