Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election

[The Don]

The Trump ambassador to Denmark has complained that her vote wasn't registered and counted.
The Danish media don't believe her, and there seems to be no reason whatsoever to do so:

USA's ambassadør påstod, hendes stemme ikke var talt med - men det var den (TV2.dk, Nov. 12, 2020)
The US ambassador claims that her vote had not been counted, but it had been counted
(The article includes a couple of ambassadorial Tweets.)

USA's ambassadør i Danmark tordner løs om valgsvindel: Men hun er ikke blevet snydt (DR.dk, Nov. 12, 2020)
The US ambassador to Denmark is raging about election fraud: But she hasn't been cheated

All in all, the Danish media find the fraud allegations hilarious:
Mens Trump taler om svindel, søger internettet efter beviser - her er, hvad der dukkede op (TV2.dk, Nov. 10, 2020)
While Trump is talking about fraud, the internet is looking for evidence: This is what turned up

She apparently made two claims:

That her vote was not counted - which has been debunked here:

https://www.thelocal.dk/20201112/us-ambassador-to-denmark-makes-false-twitter-claim-about-own-vote

That her husband, who has been dead for five years, received a postal ballot. I've not seen evidence to either support or refute that claim.

I take it that she hasn't apologised or corrected herself over her first lie...

 

[shuttlt]

Repeating the allegation doesn't invalidate the response. If the proper procedure involves double counting then there must be a means of eliminating duplicates, so there isn't a problem.

Dave

"If". She says there was a proper procedure and they didn't follow it.

You are assuming there was no fraud/malpractice etc... in your premises to conclude there wasn't fraud/malpractice.

 

[Darat]

If you [edit][snip][/edit]want to keep this thread narrowly focused only on the legally defined fraud aspect of trumps attempt to overturn the counts, then that seems overly restrictive to me. Specific aspects of a general fraud may not themselves necessarily be fraud.

And?

 

[shuttlt]

Then a FYI.

It may help you in future not to start a post with the question I actually asked and then say "I'll bite" and then go on to answer a question I didn't ask....

I suggest that most people would have thought you were answering my post....

Indeed even more so when after I pointed it out that you failed at the first hurdle i.e. didn't state the state you then claimed I hadn't asked about a specific state...

You made the question more specific than originally asked and are demanding evidence and knowledge that nobody but an election official or similar in one of these states could possess. That level of detail will hopefully come out in due course. It is clearly the case that some level of election fraud happens in these states, pretending that unless we know all the specifics of how it would be organized in any given state that we haven't shown it could be done is ridiculous. The witness statements about the goings on at the count give you a detailed account of how a lot of it would happen. Asking for us to come up with accounts of how it could happen, when we have claimed eye witness accounts of how it is claimed to have actually happened is ridiculous. Your question about "how would you know how many votes you need" has been asked and answered.... this technique has been around forever... you hold back ballots until you know how many votes you need. The specific election law doesn't matter if you don't follow it. The law wasn't followed in 1960 and it didn't matter because Nixon was pressured into conceding. If Trump conceded, election law not being followed wouldn't matter either. It only matters because Trump crazy enough to try what Nixon didn't.

 

[shuttlt]

And?

and so it's irrelevant to the overall claim of "fraud" that the specific aspect of the fraud you are quibbling about isn't, on it's own, fraud. Trump's claim is in part that election law and procedures have been deliberately weakened, not followed and unconstitutional laws implemented. Hence complaining that some one element of it when treated in isolation isn't fraud is irrelevant. Trump has said "voter fraud" a lot when describing things that would clearly be "election fraud". Limiting the discussion to some pedantic, narrow definition and excluding the meat of what is actually being claimed is at best unhelpful.

 

[Darat]

You made the question more specific than originally asked

No I didn't, I made the second time more explicit not more specific. And anyway you quoted the more explicit version and claimed I hadn't asked to have a state named when it was there in your own posts. You seem to be ..er... flailing.

and are demanding evidence and knowledge that nobody but an election official or similar in one of these states could possess.

...snip....

Nope - I was asking for Chris to provide the evidence for his claim, and you decided to tackle that claim yourself.

This arose as I knew that some of the ways Chris said he "could" have carried out election fraud wouldn't have worked in one of the contested states. I knew this from what was in the transcription of the hearing for a claim of not-fraud from one of the states .

You seem to want to make the same claim as Chris i.e. that you could carry out election fraud. Now for me to make such a claim I would have to have already checked how an election is actually run and what its SOPs are, otherwise I would not have the knowledge to know I could carry out election fraud.

Once again I am afraid it seems you just don't want to support your own claims with facts nor even evidence.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

She says they weren't following the proper procedure for handling reprocessing the ballots and that to her knowledge, as a trained tech support for the machines, this would result in multiple counting. Now she may be wrong, but this is first hand testimony of the most qualified person on the ballot counting machine that we have heard from. It isn't "hearsay on hearsay" as Darat incorrectly stated.

'Trained tech support' as in trained how to operate the machine or as in someone who actually knows how the software works? I ask because it would be almost inconceivable to design counting software and not build in elimination of duplicates and counting software for elections even more so.

At the risk of appealing to authority, I have over 30 years experience in IT - it is pretty much the first thing you think off when writing counting software.

 

[Darat]

and so it's irrelevant to the overall claim of "fraud" that the specific aspect of the fraud you are quibbling about isn't, on it's own, fraud. Trump's claim is in part that election law and procedures have been deliberately weakened, not followed and unconstitutional laws implemented. Hence complaining that some one element of it when treated in isolation isn't fraud is irrelevant. Trump has said "voter fraud" a lot when describing things that would clearly be "election fraud". Limiting the discussion to some pedantic, narrow definition and excluding the meat of what is actually being claimed is at best unhelpful.

I didn't start the thread - I'm not Trump.

If someone tells me something is evidence of electoral fraud and when I check it isn't about election fraud I am always going to explain it isn't evidence of electoral fraud.

Facts remain facts even when you don't like them.

 

[shuttlt]

Absolute nonsense. There is a 150,000 vote difference in Michigan and 53,000 vote difference in Pennsylvania. You could flip Georgia and Arizona and Trump would still lose. And no State wide election recount has made more than an about 300 vote difference and Trump is down 12K and 14K in AZ and Georgia respectively.

Time to move on. The election is over Trump lost. Move on...Get over it. Come back in 4 years.

Nixon got 943 votes back in in one county during a recount for a down ballot official in the county in 1960. That despite the seals being broken on many of the "sealed" ballot boxes and much of the paperwork that was supposed to be with the ballots having been "lost". It's clearly possible to get back thousands of votes in a recount. If he comes anywhere near doing that in any of the states we are talking about, he may win the PR battle.
https://www.politico.com/news/magaz...ed-to-overturn-a-presidential-election-428318

 

[Dave Rogers]

She says they weren't following the proper procedure for handling reprocessing the ballots and that to her knowledge, as a trained tech support for the machines, this would result in multiple counting.

Go back and read it again. She says that groups of ballots were counted multiple times. She doesn't say that this will result in multiple copies of these votes in the final count. It's a classic piece of misdirection by omission, and a hallmark of all these spurious and frivolous lawsuits.

Look, just use your critical faculties here. She says that the proper procedure if a block of votes causes an error is to move the problem ballot to the top and count them again. Read the deposition. So she's saying that the proper procedure includes multiple counts of the same ballots, twice being "multiple". The only sensible inference to draw is that repeat counting the same set of ballots over-writes the initial count, in which case counting the same set of ballots eight times still only enters one set of counts on the final total. So we're looking at an error in procedure that will have no effect on the final count, only on the efficiency with which the counters are working. It's completely irrelevant to the question of election fraud, but phrased so as to make it look like it is. It's lying by misdirection.

Dave

 

[shuttlt]

'Trained tech support' as in trained how to operate the machine or as in someone who actually knows how the software works? I ask because it would be almost inconceivable to design counting software and not build in elimination of duplicates and counting software for elections even more so.

Again, you are assuming lack of fraud/appropriate practice in your premises.

At the risk of appealing to authority, I have over 30 years experience in IT - it is pretty much the first thing you think off when writing counting software.

I agree. Again though, you are assuming your conclusions in your premises here. She claims that the counting machine was being operated in a way that did not comply with procedure and was indicating a ballot count total that it should not have been indicating. Maybe she's wrong? To me, her main value is corroborating what the poll watchers saw from another perspective.

 

[Dave Rogers]

"If". She says there was a proper procedure and they didn't follow it.

You are assuming there was no fraud/malpractice etc... in your premises to conclude there wasn't fraud/malpractice.

I'm not concluding that "there was no fraud/malpractice etc". I'm concluding that this account does not constitute credible evidence of fraud, or of any error in practice that would affect the final count. You're trying to reverse the burden of proof.

Dave

 

[shuttlt]

Go back and read it again. She says that groups of ballots were counted multiple times. She doesn't say that this will result in multiple copies of these votes in the final count. It's a classic piece of misdirection by omission, and a hallmark of all these spurious and frivolous lawsuits.

I agree and know that she doesn't say that. What she does say is that they weren't following the proper procedure, had little or no training about what they were supposed to be doing, the machine was producing output that her training indicated to her meant it was counting the ballots multiple times. Without further investigation, that is all we can say. At the very least she is corroborating claims that people in the count didn't know what they were doing and weren't following the proper processes.

Look, just use your critical faculties here. She says that the proper procedure if a block of votes causes an error is to move the problem ballot to the top and count them again. Read the deposition. So she's saying that the proper procedure includes multiple counts of the same ballots, twice being "multiple". The only sensible inference to draw is that repeat counting the same set of ballots over-writes the initial count, in which case counting the same set of ballots eight times still only enters one set of counts on the final total. So we're looking at an error in procedure that will have no effect on the final count, only on the efficiency with which the counters are working. It's completely irrelevant to the question of election fraud, but phrased so as to make it look like it is. It's lying by misdirection.

You are assuming your own conclusion here. If everything was done properly, then nothing improper happened. We already know that the process of turning ballots into a final total for the state is a process where "human error" at the stage of transferring the totals can result in thousands of votes being incorrectly recorded. Who knows what other scope there is in the process for "human error". She could be wrong. It sounds like an easy question to answer for any investigation.

 

[ChrisBFRPKY]

That is an allegation not supported by any evidence. OR has voted solely by mail since 1998 with virtually no dishonesty or cheating at all:

If OR can do it, there is no reason the rest of the country cannot.




Again, an allegation not supported by evidence. Trump and his lawyers have failed to prove a single allegation of large scale cheating despite having the entire resources of the government behind him.


False. All states require signature verification:





True. Which is why Trump and his sycophantic GOP minions and online supporters need to stop spreading false information about massive voter fraud cheating Trump out of this election. He was beaten fair and square by Biden and he needs to acknowledge it instead of undermining the integrity of our democratic elections.

That's interesting news about Oregon. Have you had any Republicans elected since switching to the mail in system? When was the last time Oregon went Red? Reagan?

Some states have signature verification software that requires a minimum of 200 dpi at the machine to read the signature properly. Yet their machines can't read at 200 dpi. Foresee any issues with that? Someone could have had their ballot stolen yet the machine may have recorded the forged signature as valid. That's an issue worthy of correction.

I'm confident the election will be fair and most fraudulent votes will be removed from the system. Especially since any forged ballots will be identified by the watermark.

About the "Trump and his sycophantic GOP minions and online supporters need to stop spreading false information about massive voter fraud cheating Trump out of this election." part.

I think after hearing about how Trump and Russia stole the election 4 years ago for the entire 4 years since, Beijing Biden supporters should expect no less if their candidate happens to cross the finish line first.

 

[Dave Rogers]

We already know that the process of turning ballots into a final total for the state is a process where "human error" at the stage of transferring the totals can result in thousands of votes being incorrectly recorded. Who knows what other scope there is in the process for "human error".

We're not talking about human error. We're talking about specific allegations of deliberate fraud on a massive scale. None of this is compelling evidence in support of those allegations.

Dave

 

[shuttlt]

I'm not concluding that "there was no fraud/malpractice etc". I'm concluding that this account does not constitute credible evidence of fraud, or of any error in practice that would affect the final count. You're trying to reverse the burden of proof.

Dave

The burden of proof is something Trump is going to have to worry about in court and in the PR battle. You are dreaming if you expect random people on the internet to prove the case at this stage. The best we can do is look at a probably cause standard.

 

[Meadmaker]

Meadmaker, Some states like Florida have been won or lost by 537 votes (2000 election). Heck I could do that many myself without any help from anyone. I'm just one guy.

One state like Florida in 2000 has ever been that close. That's the only time it has ever happened.

And yes, one guy could do that many, although I think you underestimate the difficulty of it, I think it could be done. 537 would be an awful lot, but it could be done, maybe.

The point is, though, that just because one guy could do 537 does not mean that 100 guys could do 53,700. That's the conspiracy theory trap. To get those 100 guys working on 50,000 votes, you have to coordinate them. You have to fine 100 willing people, and give them their orders, without getting caught. None of those 100 guys can get caught. If one of them is caught, he can't spill the beans.

I can figure out how to ccordinate a fake moon landing. I just can't figure out how to do it in secret.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The burden of proof is something Trump is going to have to worry about in court and in the PR battle. You are dreaming if you expect random people on the internet to prove the case at this stage. The best we can do is look at a probably cause standard.

No, the best we can do is look at the allegations, engage our critical faculties, and note that, whenever they've been presented to a court, they've either been misleading, incoherent or haven't actually involved allegations of actual fraud. Anyone with an impartial point of view must seriously consider the possibility that the whole thing is a smokescreen, and wonder, if so, what's going on behind it.

Dave

 

[shuttlt]

The point is, though, that just because one guy could do 537 does not mean that 100 guys could do 53,700. That's the conspiracy theory trap. To get those 100 guys working on 50,000 votes, you have to coordinate them. You have to fine 100 willing people, and give them their orders, without getting caught. None of those 100 guys can get caught. If one of them is caught, he can't spill the beans.

Wouldn't this same argument make organized crime impossible? There have been loads of financial scandals where low level people were either instructed to, or encouraged to do things that were clearly improper without it being discovered for years.

 

[Darat]

One state like Florida in 2000 has ever been that close. That's the only time it has ever happened.

And yes, one guy could do that many, although I think you underestimate the difficulty of it, I think it could be done. 537 would be an awful lot, but it could be done, maybe.

The point is, though, that just because one guy could do 537 does not mean that 100 guys could do 53,700. That's the conspiracy theory trap. To get those 100 guys working on 50,000 votes, you have to coordinate them. You have to fine 100 willing people, and give them their orders, without getting caught. None of those 100 guys can get caught. If one of them is caught, he can't spill the beans.

I can figure out how to ccordinate a fake moon landing. I just can't figure out how to do it in secret.

Unless he had clairvoyance he couldn’t.