Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election

[ServiceSoon]

That's false. The dictator for whom you are carrying water (in a bucket with no bottom) labels anything he doesn't like as false. What rule or law is stopping him? And by extension, what rule or law then stops anyone else?

Trump cannot be the standard with which we conduct ourselves.

 

[kookbreaker]

Well, one of them involves 30-60 people.

But I don't understand you last point. I definitely want to get real about protecting the sanctity of the democratic process. I think all charges of voter fraud need to be given the attention they deserve. If you have something, bring it on.

When you bring on a case from 2012 in a local election, I'm thinking that's about all you have.


And I'm serious about that. I really do feel that the voting process is sacred. It needs protection. Allegations of fraud need to be investigated. And.....this part is important......allegations of fraud by losing candidates need to be backed by some evidence other than "I know we were going to win, so if we lost it must be fraud." Doing that is really dangerous, especially when it's done by the President of the United States.

So by all means, investigate, but you also have to honor the results of the election. The best evidence available right now is that Joe Biden won the election. If you have better evidence than has already been presented, by all means bring it forward for examination. That's why I started this thread.

Its a classic: "Somebody shoplifted a $30 item from Target, so therefore robbing a bank of $50,000 in cash without anyone noticing must be easy and happening all the time".

 

[wareyin]

I don’t care who is cheating. Step one is admitting we have a problem so we can address it. The governor of Florida has used some shady election tactics.

Here is an article from the New York Times from 2012 which discusses mail in ballot fraud. The security of mail in ballots certainty hasn’t improved since then.

If you truly believed in the democratic process these examples of fraud should cause enough concern to discuss how we can improve the process and make it more secure. What is the harm in making the voting process more secure?

In 2012 election experts said this:

And now these same experts tell us there is nothing to worry about? As the next president of the United States would say, come on man.

If you are truly concerned with making the voting process more secure, about the only thing you can do is the opposite of what you are currently doing: stop supporting the Republican Party who is refusing to allow it to be made more secure. Stop supporting the Republican Party's hollow attempts to amplify a couple of decades old minor cases in an attempt to undermine the current election.

Trump cannot be the standard with which we conduct ourselves.

What rule or law dictates when we are allowed to call something false? I'm pretty ok with people calling stuff from known fraudsters and liars that doesn't pass the smell test as "false," even if it isn't 100% proven yet. The Project Veritas and Giuliani's and Trumps lie so much that we're better off to assume anything they say is false until proven true.

 

[ServiceSoon]

THIS

I have to believe at this point that they are simply pulling anything and anything from any source and just throwing it out there in the hope that no-one will notice.

Starting with the supposition that the fairness and accuracy of the election is important to every sane citizen. My intention of sharing these historic examples is to show a trend occurring over decades that the security of our elections are susceptible to fraud. These examples are the fraud we found, there is most definitely fraud we haven’t found. My fear is that the amount we found is small compared to the amount that exist.

How can we design a better way to be more certain that the amount we found is most of the fraud that exist?

Is it possible to redesign our election system To make it more resilient against fraud?

 

[acbytesla]

While we're nitpicking over a few votes we shouldn't forget that Biden defeated Trump by more than FIVE and a QUARTER MILLION VOTES.

 

[Meadmaker]

I don’t care who is cheating. Step one is admitting we have a problem so we can address it. The governor of Florida has used some shady election tactics.

Here is an article from the New York Times from 2012 which discusses mail in ballot fraud. The security of mail in ballots certainty hasn’t improved since then.

If you truly believed in the democratic process these examples of fraud should cause enough concern to discuss how we can improve the process and make it more secure. What is the harm in making the voting process more secure?

In 2012 election experts said this:

And now these same experts tell us there is nothing to worry about? As the next president of the United States would say, come on man.

Do you read the articles you link to? It doesn't really support a reason to believe significant fraud in a presidential election.

However, that's not really the point. It is possible to commit fraud, so we should guard against it.

But, what we're most interested in right now is whether any fraud of any significance occurred in this election. The fact that a woman in Hialeah, Florida in 2012 had 31 ballots in her possession does not mean that we should award Pennsylvania's 20 electoral votes to Donald Trump.



(As an aside, it looks to me like that 32 ballot woman was a case of illegal ballot harvesting, rather than actual fraud)

 

[johnny karate]

You cannot label something false until it has been proven false. You can use subjective labels like baseless, unsubstantiated, or unproven.

Exactly. If someone were to accuse you of pedophilia, we cannot label that claim false until it has been proven false.

 

[turingtest]

Does this instance of being a local election exclude it from occurring at a larger scale? The examples of voter fraud in the United States are legion. Some of these examples involve conspiracies including 30 to 60 individuals prosecuted by the FBI. Let me know when you want to get real about protecting the sanctity of the democratic process.

Yes. Also the fact that it was not in this election excludes it from occurring now.



When you say "legion," do you really mean something like 10-20 cases spanning the entire history of the United States? Because that's what you're presenting as "legion."



Oooh, 30 to 60 individuals? Gasp, that totally means the literally tens of thousands it would take to do it nationwide is totally plausible. And, spoiler alert: the 30 to 60 individuals were caught. The sanctity of the democratic process was protected by their being caught and punished, and hopefully any means they used have been protected against. Then again, Republicans in the Senate have flat out refused to even allow any Election integrity laws to be voted on, so I think we all know who doesn't actually want the sanctity of the democratic process to be protected.

This idea that the "sanctity" of the democratic process must somehow also mean its absolute perfection as one is a little disingenuous too. I read an article somewhere today (don't remember where, and it's not really all that important) that there is a greater chance of a citizen being struck by lightning than of committing voter fraud. We'd all like our processes to be pure and perfectly safe- the fact that they can't be and aren't is no reason to question the results to the point that the process itself becomes a never-ending exercise in doubt.

 

[Meadmaker]

Starting with the supposition that the fairness and accuracy of the election is important to every sane citizen. My intention of sharing these historic examples is to show a trend occurring over decades that the security of our elections are susceptible to fraud. These examples are the fraud we found, there is most definitely fraud we haven’t found. My fear is that the amount we found is small compared to the amount that exist.

How can we design a better way to be more certain that the amount we found is most of the fraud that exist?

Is it possible to redesign our election system To make it more resilient against fraud?

And, if that's really your point, it's a good question, as long as it isn't used to beg the question of whether significant fraud actually exists.

I would like to see a more secure, robust, system so that we could put to bed some of the unfounded allegations we are seeing. I would like to be able to say it would be utterly impossible to commit the kind of fraud that would be necessary to flip the vote in this presidential election. Instead, I have to content myself with saying that it's impossible because you couldn't coordinate the number of people required to pull it off without being caught.

 

[johnny karate]

Does this instance of being a local election exclude it from occurring at a larger scale? The examples of voter fraud in the United States are legion. Some of these examples involve conspiracies including 30 to 60 individuals prosecuted by the FBI. Let me know when you want to get real about protecting the sanctity of the democratic process.

What excludes election fraud from happening on a larger is scale is the lack of evidence that election fraud is happening on a larger scale.

 

[johnny karate]

I don’t care who is cheating. Step one is admitting we have a problem so we can address it. The governor of Florida has used some shady election tactics.

Here is an article from the New York Times from 2012 which discusses mail in ballot fraud. The security of mail in ballots certainty hasn’t improved since then.

If you truly believed in the democratic process these examples of fraud should cause enough concern to discuss how we can improve the process and make it more secure. What is the harm in making the voting process more secure?

In 2012 election experts said this:

And now these same experts tell us there is nothing to worry about? As the next president of the United States would say, come on man.

Cool. Let me know when you’ve got evidence of mass election fraud.

 

[johnny karate]

Starting with the supposition that the fairness and accuracy of the election is important to every sane citizen. My intention of sharing these historic examples is to show a trend occurring over decades that the security of our elections are susceptible to fraud. These examples are the fraud we found, there is most definitely fraud we haven’t found. My fear is that the amount we found is small compared to the amount that exist.

How can we design a better way to be more certain that the amount we found is most of the fraud that exist?

Is it possible to redesign our election system To make it more resilient against fraud?

What are the specific flaws in the current election system that make mass fraud possible?

 

[kookbreaker]

This article from August should be noted.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...ngly-oversimplifies-voter-fraud-idUSKCN2512B2

Some highlights:

1) Faking a mail-in ballot is actually more tricky than folks imply, and involves a few felonies along the way.

2) Fake Mail ballots are extremely rare.

3) stricter Mail ballot standards are more often used to disenfranchise minority voters than provide actual security.

 

[Stacyhs]

There is so much angst about massive voter fraud yet they have yet to produce evidence of massive voter fraud. We get nothing but examples of insignificant dribbles here and there, almost always cases of less than 100 votes here and there out of millions that have been cast and almost always in small, local elections. Yet, to hear them tell it, we're at the mercy of organized, corrupt political gangs stealing our elections and putting our very democracy in dire peril. Cue the Perils of Pauline piano music.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

While we're nitpicking over a few votes we shouldn't forget that Biden defeated Trump by more than FIVE and a QUARTER MILLION VOTES.

California has not been disputed to my knowledge? Has there been allegations of fraud there as well?

Oh, and we don't elect a President by popular vote. It'd be downright silly to let California choose every President of the US.

 

[Bob001]

California has not been disputed to my knowledge? Has there been allegations of fraud there as well?

Oh, and we don't elect a President by popular vote. It'd be downright silly to let California choose every President of the US.

If we elected Presidents by popular vote the states as such would cease to play a role; every vote would carry equal weight. Republicans in California and New York have no electoral voice now, just like Democrats in most of the South. Campaigns would be run differently, and candidates would need to appeal to every voter everywhere. What's the downside?

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

What excludes election fraud from happening on a larger is scale is the lack of evidence that election fraud is happening on a larger scale.

Exactly.

Also, what excludes driving above the speed limit from happening on a larger scale is the lack of evidence that driving above the speed limit is happening on a larger scale. Until you get caught, it never happens.......

 

[acbytesla]

California has not been disputed to my knowledge? Has there been allegations of fraud there as well?

Oh, and we don't elect a President by popular vote. It'd be downright silly to let California choose every President of the US.

I dont give a ****.

It's time to end this farce that makes votes in some places more valuable than others. I thought we were all ******* AMERICANS?

How is this not a violation of the Equal Protection Clause?

What makes it anything but a travesty of democratic principles?

 

[slyjoe]

500,000 elections in this country each cycle (give or take) and there is only ONE that goes through this crap.

Should be one person, one vote.

And the argument about "well, each state has different needs" is BS. So what? California is not homogenous, but its governor is elected by popular vote. Like Bob001 said, what's the downside?

 

[dirtywick]

CA isn't big enough to win the popular vote for a US president. You'd need votes from all the states to win.