Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election

[shuttlt]

It's another round of the Conspiracy Theorist's Backstep dance. There's no evidence of fraud, so try to shift the burden of proof to a demand for evidence that there wasn't a fraud;

No. If you read my posts, you will see I was responding to a claim that it was hard to imagine this kind of voter fraud would be possible because of the number of people you'd have to involve. I provided an example of the operation. You'll notice I'm not arguing that anybody here needs to prove that it didn't happen in the US. That is clearly something that Trump is going to have to show.

You guys have some kind of platonic model of your opposition that you argue with regardless of the poster.

 

[shuttlt]

There is no credible evidence of electoral malpractice in the 2020 US Presidential Election on a sufficient scale to influence the result, and unless and until any such evidence is produced, Joe Biden is the President-Elect.

Dave

Again, you are arguing against an argument I didn't make. Go find somebody who is making the argument you want to argue against and argue with them.

 

[Dave Rogers]

No. If you read my posts, you will see I was responding to a claim that it was hard to imagine this kind of voter fraud would be possible because of the number of people you'd have to involve.

And if you read mine, you'll see that I identified that claim as an error in tacitly accepting an attempt to shift the burden of proof. There is actually no need to speculate on whether this kind of voter fraud might be possible; the burden of proof is on whether it actually occurred. No credible evidence has surfaced, so that burden is not met.

Dave

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Oh, and those wondering why Trump is doing this - well, they're collecting donations to help fight the fraud, but if you read the small print you'll that most of the money collected actually goes to paying off campaign debt and founding a PAC to allow Trump to continue to have influence after he leaves office.

 

[Norman Alexander]

Oh, and those wondering why Trump is doing this - well, they're collecting donations to help fight the fraud, but if you read the small print you'll that most of the money collected actually goes to paying off campaign debt and founding a PAC to allow Trump to continue to have influence after he leaves office.

True to the end, at least: IT'S ALL ABOUT TRUMP! NOBODY ELSE MATTERS, JUST TRUMP!

 

[Darat]

I will offer some alternative explanations.

At the moment he is running on fumes. He has to keep momentum going in the hope that something comes up. It also does have a whack-a-mole effect where it is much harder to narratively close him out because there are so many overlapping stories going on. If he just sat quietly by and waited for his strongest one or two lawsuits the media would be able to say it was debunked and the news cycle and peoples interest would move on. As things stand, he is at least able to exert some pressure for audits and so forth regardless of the outcomes of the lawsuits.

It could also be that he has minimal expectation of winning and the goal is to craft some kind of going down in battle charging at the thickest part of the enemy line ending rather than surrendering (I don't mean in a white house siege). It seems like the Trumpest ending to me.

He has no idea about the lawsuits, you seem to be indicating that Trump is actually doing something, that he is organising these various law suits brought by people that are not Trump, that he coordinates them, that they are part of strategy or plan he has come up with.

There is no evidence that he is doing this and the evidence we have is that it would be entirely exceptional for him to be organising such a campaign.

 

[Darat]

The evidence I would need to provide to convince you that large scale voter/election fraud was possible would be a large scale voter/election fraud operation that wasn't caught? That is a logical impossibility.

No - I’ve explained earlier what you would need to do. But neither you nor Chris are willing to do the research required.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

But as I posted above your example is actually an example of what they said, i.e. organised large scale (and the example wasn’t exactly large) will be caught out because of the nature of such attempts. So you are posting support for their claim.

In fairness it's going to be difficult to post examples of large scale electoral fraud that weren't discovered. So it's a bit of an impossible task to meet the criteria.

 

[Darat]

In fairness it's going to be difficult to post examples of large scale electoral fraud that weren't discovered. So it's a bit of an impossible task to meet the criteria.

But no one has asked for that. You’ve missed the goalposts moving!

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

But no one has asked for that. You’ve missed the goalposts moving!

It's a bit of a red herring anyway because if voter fraud COULD go on undetected then it would be undetected and we couldn't do anything about it. So arguing about whether it can go on undetected is neither here nor there really.

The question is whether we have detected anything in this instance and the answer seems to be no.

 

[Architect]

In fairness it's going to be difficult to post examples of large scale electoral fraud that weren't discovered. So it's a bit of an impossible task to meet the criteria.

I think you're getting into Van Rijn's Invisible Elf territory here.


Taking a different tack, what we know from previous cases of electoral fraud - such as the UK case Shuttl mentions - is that a considerable number of people are involved for even modest cases and hence there is an increased likelihood that it will come to light.


It therefore seems implausible that fraud on the scale claimed in the US would manage to be carried out without a substantive amount of evidence become apparent. The Trump campaign thus far appears to have been able to produce such material, and hence the claims cannot be treated credibly at the current time.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

I think you're getting into Van Rijn's Invisible Elf territory here.

Taking a different tack, what we know from previous cases of electoral fraud - such as the UK case Shuttl mentions - is that a considerable number of people are involved for even modest cases and hence there is an increased likelihood that it will come to light.

It therefore seems implausible that fraud on the scale claimed in the US would manage to be carried out without a substantive amount of evidence become apparent. The Trump campaign thus far appears to have been able to produce such material, and hence the claims cannot be treated credibly at the current time.

Yes, my only point was that the plausibility or implausibility isn't really important since the only relevant question is 'do we have credible evidence of wrongdoing?'

We have no real data on the prevalence of undetected voter fraud since by it's nature it's undetected. And I don't see that detected voter fraud necessarily tells us much about the prevalence of undetected voter fraud.

It's just one of those pointless arguments really.

The key questions are:

1. Are the controls in place robust?
2. Is there reason to believe the controls were circumvented?

In other words, yes, in the absence of evidence of fraud we would not assume fraud to have happened.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

1. Are the controls in place robust?
2. Is there reason to believe the controls were circumvented?

In other words, yes, in the absence of evidence of fraud we would not assume fraud to have happened.

The answer to 2 appears to be: "Trump didn't win".

 

[Nessie]

Apologies for my post not hitting a mark I wasn't aiming for. Any case that one points out is going to differ in some way from the case at hand, and hence can be dismissed out of hand. I thought this case would be interesting to Darat as I believe he is from the UK and the case if from the UK. I also thought it would be interesting to the specific poster who was talking about whether organizing something like this would be possible given that lots of people would have to know about it. That poster seemed genuinely interested in dialog rather than just reflexively saying "no" to everything.

It seems to me that on the community organizing side of election fraud, in the right community, it is perfectly possible to organize a crazy blatant level of fraud. Given the security in place on the election, I'm not sure how you would catch it. Maybe an audit.

The case you highlighted was a failed attempt and it shows what would be needed to conduct voter fraud and how hard it is to do successfully.

It shows that it is not perfectly possible to organise widespread massive fraud, in fact it is very difficult in a well organised and regulated voting system.

Fraud is far more likely in places where corruption is endemic, where voting has never happened before, where local authorities have limited experience of organising votes and where the police have limited experience policing elections and investigating frauds.

The Birmingham Aston fraud in part failed because it was so blatant;

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/apr/05/uk.localgovernment

"The Birmingham elections office, which had been overwhelmed when applications for postal votes soared from 28,000 to 70,000..."

"Turnout in Bordesley Green had risen by over 100%, in Aston by 350%, and there had been a huge swing to Labour."

They were never going to get away with that;

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...raud-would-shame-banana-republic-5350422.html

"Councillors guilty of postal votes fraud that would 'shame a banana republic'

 

[Nessie]

It's a bit of a red herring anyway because if voter fraud COULD go on undetected then it would be undetected and we couldn't do anything about it. So arguing about whether it can go on undetected is neither here nor there really.

The question is whether we have detected anything in this instance and the answer seems to be no.

I disagree. If hundreds of thousands, if not millions of votes were illegal, we would know about it. So, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

 

[shuttlt]

He has no idea about the lawsuits,

What do you mean, no idea?

you seem to be indicating that Trump is actually doing something, that he is organising these various law suits brought by people that are not Trump, that he coordinates them, that they are part of strategy or plan he has come up with.

I'm assuming the lawsuits are a tool to some end. As far as I'm aware Trump is a big picture guy. I don't particularly think he is down in the weeds on each lawsuit. I don't see that arguing about whether he is or isn't relates to what I said. Presumably he isn't unaware of what is going on, or the lawsuits are going on against his will.

There is no evidence that he is doing this and the evidence we have is that it would be entirely exceptional for him to be organising such a campaign.

So somebody other than Trump is behind the effort to keep Trump in power? Trump isn't involved, and the decision to keep pushing wasn't his? Who do you think is deciding on Trumps behalf to try to challenge the election?

If I'm misstating your position here, I apologise, I genuinely don't get what you are arguing.

 

[dann]

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...

She being Carla Sands, Trump's ambassador to Denmark. Still no apology that I've hear of, but I don't know if this can be interpreted as shame:

Faroese and US authorities today signed a joint declaration between the two nations at an event held at Tórshavn’s Nordic House.

The cooperation agreement will cover areas such as trade, research, culture and education.

Among the guests at the event was the US Ambassador to Denmark, Carla Sands, who has recently come under fire from international media after she tweeted a controversial claim about election fraud at last week’s US Presidential Election. Sands was keen to answer questions about the new agreement but less so when the focus turned to the controversial tweet. After being probed by journalists about her intentions for writing the tweet, she and her PR people escaped out of the backdoor of the Nordic House and drove off.
Faroe-US cooperation deal signed today (KVF.fo, Nov. 12, 2020)

 

[Architect]

Speaking as someone with experience of court as an expert witness there is, I think, a common misconception amongst some supporters of the legal challenge(s) against the Biden votesa regarding the standard or evidence required and extent of legal scrutiny. TV and film typically portrays this very poorly, as it focusses on drama (for obvious reasons).


Any assertion must be supported by substantive evidence and, depending on jurisdiction, corroborative material. The responding or defending party then has an opportunity to interrogate this in very considerable detail in advance of any evidence in chief (for example).



Unsubstantiated claims will founder almost immediately, as will non-sequiturs or arguments from incredulity. Calls for perfection do not, in my experience, fare well in (Scottish) court nor do perceived minor procedural claims.


The trouble in the sections of the affidavit which I've seen is that they make all these mistakes. It's just not convincing. And whilst absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the Trump campaign cannot win their cases based on this kind of evidence.

 

[shuttlt]

The case you highlighted was a failed attempt and it shows what would be needed to conduct voter fraud and how hard it is to do successfully.

I'm not sure that it shows that it is particularly hard. The same article says that they believe there was fraud involving other parties in other locations of the UK.

It shows that it is not perfectly possible to organise widespread massive fraud, in fact it is very difficult in a well organised and regulated voting system.

I don't see that. Any example that I can provide will be where people were caught, hence any example of voter fraud becomes evidence that voter fraud isn't possible.

Fraud is far more likely in places where corruption is endemic, where voting has never happened before, where local authorities have limited experience of organising votes and where the police have limited experience policing elections and investigating frauds.

This reads very similarly to the Veritas claims about the Somali community and Elan Omar.

The Birmingham Aston fraud in part failed because it was so blatant;

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/apr/05/uk.localgovernment

"The Birmingham elections office, which had been overwhelmed when applications for postal votes soared from 28,000 to 70,000..."

"Turnout in Bordesley Green had risen by over 100%, in Aston by 350%, and there had been a huge swing to Labour."

They were never going to get away with that;

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...raud-would-shame-banana-republic-5350422.html

"Councillors guilty of postal votes fraud that would 'shame a banana republic'

What you missed there is that the law had just been changed to make mail in voting much easier and more widespread, just like happened recently in the US. These councillors were taking advantage of it.

The rules governing postal ballots were liberalised in 2000 to boost turn-out. In Birmingham, applications soared from 16,000 in 2001 to more than 70,000 in 2004.Next month's postal votes in the general election face no more checks on their veracity than in Birmingham's council elections. So some close-run results may be end up in court.

Fundamentally the judge in the case disagrees that fraud would be difficult or easily detected:

But we are concerned that the cases which have come to public attention so far may be only part of a wider problem.

Sure he doesn't think that it is widespread enough to impact the general election, but he is clearly concerned that fraud of the type I mentioned was going on undetected elsewhere.

 

[timhau]

I heard that Bigfoot submitted his ballot on a strip of half eaten pine bark.

Don't be absurd. However, since there are people who believe in Bigfoot and people who don't, surely the reasonable position is to assume that a bipedal ape with a size-11 foot voted illegally for Biden with an unofficial organic ballot.