Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election

[Architect]

I disagree, Shuttl: the evidence in the UK is that attempted fraud is identified fairly quickly. See, for example, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50767154.


Moreover the Electoral Commission publish guidance on how to address the issue: https://www.electoralcommission.org...and-detecting-electoral-fraud-in-Scotland.pdf

 

[turingtest]

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.

Or for whom the fraud is committed. If an argument on behalf of one party to an election depends on an indeterminable fraud (Schrodinger's Fraud?) committed by the other, then there's no reason that the other party can't claim exactly the same thing in the opposite direction, and (as you say) the arguments go nowhere but in a circle.

So, here's an idea- why not depend on evidence of detectable and detected fraud, sufficient to move the scales significantly in 2020, that happened in 2020? Not 1960, 1982, 2012, or whenever else- "what could have happened" is not evidence for "what did happen." There's a 9/11 CTist right now in that subforum arguing that the government could have faked FDR and other technical data to make it look like a plane hit the Pentagon, and a cabdriver could have been drugged or otherwise manipulated to confuse him as to where he was as a witness to that- all of that is necessary to sustain the CT narrative, but none of those "could have happened" scenarios are relevant except in terms of that necessity.

 

[Darat]

What do you mean, no idea?

He doesn't know the content, nor the legal arguments that are being made.

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.

He knows court cases are going on and that is it.

So somebody other than Trump is behind the effort to keep Trump in power?

Not what I said.

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?

Not what I said.

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

OK - let me try to be clear:

Trump has not sat down, looked at all the data, all the evidence and said "Right what we need to do is...." and given a plan/strategy at any level of detail. He has merely wailed and flailed that he doesn't want to lose the election, and he has let everyone know that.

His go to action for anything he doesn't like has always been "to sue" it's a known pattern of behaviour for him stretching back 5 decades. He has said he wants the results changed, people need to be taken to court.

Other people have taken up the reins and started to sue because they want Trump to stay as president and that is what he wants them to do.

Trump has no idea of any of the detail of any of the lawsuits, he doesn't know on what grounds they are being raised, he doesn't know that (so far) they all seem to be about errors and not fraud. He literally doesn't have a clue what is being done "in his name" and he doesn't care.

 

[Nessie]

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.


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.


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


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.


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

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.

The point is that the change made voter fraud more likely, but that does not therefore mean that likeliness means voter fraud on a scale to affect elections becomes more likely.

The Birmingham attempt failed because it was so blatant and large that it raised numerous flags and left lots of evidence. If the fraud was limited to produce a small swing in a marginal seat, it might succeed. But that was not the case.

In the US election, Trump is alleging fraud on a massive scale, not a few hundred votes here and there to tip marginal elections. A massive fraud is far easier to detect than a small one. A small fraud is unlikely to affect an election.

 

[shuttlt]

I disagree, Shuttl: the evidence in the UK is that attempted fraud is identified fairly quickly. See, for example, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50767154.


Moreover the Electoral Commission publish guidance on how to address the issue: https://www.electoralcommission.org...and-detecting-electoral-fraud-in-Scotland.pdf

OK. But the judge in the case was concerned that similar fraud could well be going on elsewhere in the UK undetected.

Your example from the BBC is of a different case. I don't understand how examples of fraud being discovered are evidence that fraud can't be going on. Your example of how efficiently fraud is discovered is people turning up at the polling station and being told they had already voted. This is exactly what people are reporting in the US and we are dismissing. How can the same situation be simultaneously evidence of the efficiency of the system to catch fraud, and just a case of somebody claiming something that probably never happened?

Your other link has some interesting information in it.

These are Blackburn (2003),4 Birmingham (2004),5 Peterborough
(2004),6 Bradford (2005),7 Tower Hamlets (2006)8 and Slough (2007).9 The
investigation of these cases required a huge investment of resources from the
police to gather statements and evidence.

So there has been quite a bit of election fraud and it isn't necessarily easy to prove, but requires "a huge investment of resources from the police". As to the rest of the document, I'm not sure of the relevance. In some of the allegations the claim is clearly that the proper process wasn't followed and that election officials were either involved in or indifferent to the fraud.

 

[Meadmaker]

I will offer some alternative explanations.
...
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.

Doesn't seem like an alternate. Sounds insane to me. Seriously.

 

[Darat]

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.


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.


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


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.


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

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.

You do in the end seem to want this to be entered into your brief for why election fraud could happen in the current USA GE.

Therefore can you please show by referring to the actual processes in the states you think this "could" have happened in how the same criminal activity wouldn't have been detected by the controls those states have in place.

 

[Nessie]

I disagree, Shuttl: the evidence in the UK is that attempted fraud is identified fairly quickly. See, for example, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50767154.


Moreover the Electoral Commission publish guidance on how to address the issue: https://www.electoralcommission.org...and-detecting-electoral-fraud-in-Scotland.pdf

The attempted fraud consisted of;

"Allegations of voting fraud were being investigated at a number of locations in Scotland as counting began in the 2019 UK general election.
Renfrewshire Council said a possible case of personation had been reported to police in the Paisley and Renfrewshire North constituency.
At the Glasgow count, three cases are also being looked at while one is alleged in Stirling."

Five cases.

IME of policing elections, alleged voter fraud is mostly identified because someone turns up to vote to be told that they cannot vote, so the voter complains to the police. However, the vast majority of those are quickly solved by simple investigations that uncover the voter never registered to vote, or got a postal vote which they did not use and thought they could then just turn up and vote. Or, a mistake was made when someone turned up to vote, but the wrong name was scored out in the electoral role, so when that person arrived to vote, their name had a line through it. Supposed personation cases were often mistakes marking the electoral register as voters appeared.

I was even present when someone grabbed a ballot paper off another, marked it and put it in the ballot box! It was a husband and wife, the wife was wanted to get on with shopping, the husband was chatting, so she decided to just vote for him. We agreed, with the ballot station officers that no further action would be taken, since the wife had voted as her husband had said he would vote.

 

[Nessie]

OK. But the judge in the case was concerned that similar fraud could well be going on elsewhere in the UK undetected.

Your example from the BBC is of a different case. I don't understand how examples of fraud being discovered are evidence that fraud can't be going on. Your example of how efficiently fraud is discovered is people turning up at the polling station and being told they had already voted. This is exactly what people are reporting in the US and we are dismissing. How can the same situation be simultaneously evidence of the efficiency of the system to catch fraud, and just a case of somebody claiming something that probably never happened?

Your other link has some interesting information in it.

So there has been quite a bit of election fraud and it isn't necessarily easy to prove, but requires "a huge investment of resources from the police". As to the rest of the document, I'm not sure of the relevance. In some of the allegations the claim is clearly that the proper process wasn't followed and that election officials were either involved in or indifferent to the fraud.

It is hard to prove who did it, it is easy to detect it is happened, especially when on a large scale.

 

[pgwenthold]

The kick of it is Nevada received this ladies ballot. She had every opportunity to challenge the ballot the state received by signing an affidavit. But she wouldn't do it. That would open whomever might have cast the first ballot to possible charges. This seems much more like someone who wanted the attention but didn't want to face the consequences.

What concerns/disturbs/bothers me, or at least makes me laugh at their incompetence, is that any lawyers would try to present her as evidence of voter fraud.

Did they not actually question her about her story? No one, and I mean NO ONE with a shred of honesty could seriously think this story is in any way indicative of a voting issue. That the GOP tried parading her around is a sign of how desperate they are. They are so desperate that they will eat up any story, regardless how completely obviously baseless it is.

Seriously, how can anyone defend it?

 

[pgwenthold]

This is classic. It is even more ridiculous then that. 2 of the names of voters Trump listed did NOT vote in 2020.

I have related how my mom filled out the ballot for my (dying) dad and sent it in, committing voter fraud. My dad died after she sent in the ballot. They live in a state where you need to be alive on election day to vote, so he was ultimately ineligible.

I looked it up. I found confirmation of my mom's mail-in ballot, but not my dad's.

IOW, his vote was not counted. In fact, his ballot was not even confirmed. The process worked as it is supposed to in that respect.

 

[shuttlt]

The Birmingham attempt failed because it was so blatant and large that it raised numerous flags and left lots of evidence. If the fraud was limited to produce a small swing in a marginal seat, it might succeed. But that was not the case.

You say they were caught for this reason. Do you have details of how they were caught?

In the US election, Trump is alleging fraud on a massive scale, not a few hundred votes here and there to tip marginal elections. A massive fraud is far easier to detect than a small one. A small fraud is unlikely to affect an election.

There were 275 votes for the Aston ward on the table when the police broke in. The case also says that they were engaged in fraud in the neighbouring Bordesley Green ward. A hand writing expert concluded hundreds of ballots were forged, but who can say what the actual total is? There are only a few thousand votes cast in Aston local elections. I can't find the totals for that year, but going by the most recent data I could find, only about 6000 people voted. So just on the table was north of 4% of the total votes cast.

I agree with you that Trump would have to show something as bad as this was going on at a much larger scale. Even supposing it was happening, proving it in the few weeks Trump has is going to be tough.

 

[I Am The Scum]

Not content to merely divert attention to fraud from different years, shuttlt has resorted to discussing fraud from other countries.

 

[pgwenthold]

The fourth case in the article linked was one of a similar name so not one of fraud at all.

Just more evidence of the utter incompetence of this administration.

OK, so to summarize, AIUI

Press release with claim of 4 dead people who voted
1 was the widow, and not the dead person
1 was not a dead person either, just someone with a similar name, and
2 never actually voted

Not going to make the majors with that kind of batting average

 

[Meadmaker]

I know other people have already commented, but I'll add my two cents on the UK case brought up by shuttit.

Not only were they caught, but they were caught easily. It was obvious that there was something wrong before the polls were closed.

This sounds to me like one of those cases I have seen several examples of where a couple of doofuses heard that there was tons and tons of (something....such as voter fraud, or Halloween candy poisoning, or whatever there is that everyone knows happens all the time, except it doesn't.) and decides it's very easy and that they will do it themselves, and they are immediately caught.

Notice that the people apprehended were not exactly criminal masterminds.

 

[pgwenthold]

But they aren’t. That is the spin. We are seeing when we actually get to the court hearing the lawyers for the plaintiffs are stating they are not making an argument about election fraud. They are putting forward a case about flaws, procedures not followed correctly and mistakes.

If they had evidence of electoral fraud they would have handed it to the police as they are the investigators for criminal acts.

That is a very important point. Someone posted the link to the Legal Eagles video in this thread, and he says that exact thing - despite what they are saying in public, when they get to court, the argument is very different.

But even then, they are getting dismissed for lack of evidence, or hearsay within hearsay. They even use claims of speculation and conjecture.

 

[shuttlt]

It is hard to prove who did it, it is easy to detect it is happened, especially when on a large scale.

I don't see why it would be easy to detect. What would be the signs here if they pushed up the number of votes in a number of wards by 10%? These are real ballots, with real peoples names on them. Handwriting checks might catch them, but if we are relating this to the US I believe the claim is that many precincts weren't bothering with handwriting checks. You'd only catch it in an audit, surely?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Biden seems to be almost sure to win Arizona. That will make any shenniagnas on large scale impossible.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/o...ns-finally-call-arizona-for-biden-11605243924
Other news organizations finally call Arizona for Biden
Some had complained those calls were premature as Biden’s lead gradually shrank as more Arizona votes came in. But his lead proved insurmountable, and Thursday night the New York Times, CNN, ABC News, CBS News and NBC News all followed suit, calling that race for the Democratic challenger to President Donald Trump.

AZ audit results:
https://azsos.gov/election/2020-general-election-hand-count-results

Trump won't be able to even request a recount there.

Also:
https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020...lection-certification-ahead-of-trump-recount/
More Than 2/3 Of Wisconsin Counties Finish Election Certification Ahead Of Trump Recount
The certified vote totals in the 49 counties that have submitted their returns changed little from what they reported on election night. Thirteen counties showed no change. In the others, Biden’s vote total dropped by 51 votes while Trump’s fell by 208, giving Biden a net gain of 157 votes.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

So why do Republicans accept the validity of all their successful Senate and House elections in places where Biden won?
Why wouldn't they be just as fraudulent?

 

[Meadmaker]

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.

Like Chicago in 1982. Seriously. Obviously they had plenty of experience organizing votes, but a small group had very tight control over how those votes were conducted. Even then they got caught, just not right away, and it's a safe bet that there were plenty of people who got away with real fraud during the Richard J. Daley years.

One thing that matters a lot to these schemes is that the number of people involved has to be very small. I am guessing that Chicago must still have been using voting machines at that time that didn't leave a paper trail. If you could corrupt just a couple of people, you could add hundreds of votes and leave behind very little evidence.

Of course, they left behind enough evidence to get caught, by getting too ambitious. Usually that sort of fraud was limited to elections for Alderman and precinct level offices.