Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election

[dmaker]

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.

It was more of an in joke. Kentucky Bigfoot Chris claims to have seen (possibly claimed to have video) Bigfeets in Kentucky stripping and eating pine bark like cotton candy.

 

[surrogate]

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?

Apparently, only Democrats commit fraud. Republicans just use voter suppression in urban areas, much more efficient and effective.

 

[Nessie]

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

It is in the links I previously posted. They were caught because what they did caused an exceptional swing to Labour, which drew attention and then so many people were involved, from postmen being threatened to kids being used to steal ballots, that was not hard to find cooperative witnesses.

Even some police bumbling and inaction was not enough to cause the case to fall.

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.

Unless lots of people did not bother to report that they never received their postal vote, which is unlikely, then where there is no report of problems, that is a sign there are no problems.

If postal votes went missing in their thousands all over the UK and an election was so far out of the ordinary, then there would be evidence of widespread, large fraud.

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.

IME, people who do not get their postal vote, or turn up to vote and are told they cannot, as they have already voted, report it. It is not a crime that people do not bother to report, either by getting in touch with the local election commission to ask where their postal vote is, or to say at the polling station that they have not voted.

For widespread fraud to go unreported is unlikely, especially in the millions required to affect the US elections.

 

[Nessie]

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.

The smaller the vote, the smaller the margins, the higher the risk. The US presidential election is almost the exact opposite, it must be one of the largest votes in the world.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Apparently, only Democrats commit fraud. Republicans just use voter suppression in urban areas, much more efficient and effective.

The CT is that Democrat operatives put Biden for President on the top of their fake ballots, but voted Red down-ballot to hide their tracks.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Also seems relevant to this thread:
https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/1...ture-government-coordinating-council-election
JOINT STATEMENT FROM ELECTIONS INFRASTRUCTURE GOVERNMENT COORDINATING COUNCIL & THE ELECTION INFRASTRUCTURE SECTOR COORDINATING EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES
“When states have close elections, many will recount ballots. All of the states with close results in the 2020 presidential race have paper records of each vote, allowing the ability to go back and count each ballot if necessary. This is an added benefit for security and resilience. This process allows for the identification and correction of any mistakes or errors. There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.
(bolding theirs)

 

[The Don]

Also seems relevant to this thread:
https://www.cisa.gov/news/2020/11/1...ture-government-coordinating-council-election
JOINT STATEMENT FROM ELECTIONS INFRASTRUCTURE GOVERNMENT COORDINATING COUNCIL & THE ELECTION INFRASTRUCTURE SECTOR COORDINATING EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES
“When states have close elections, many will recount ballots. All of the states with close results in the 2020 presidential race have paper records of each vote, allowing the ability to go back and count each ballot if necessary. This is an added benefit for security and resilience. This process allows for the identification and correction of any mistakes or errors. There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.
(bolding theirs)

As far as the majority of Republicans are now concerned, the CISA is a discredited organisation, its head Christopher Krebs is a Deep State operative and he'll likely be fired any day now because he has failed to protect the security of the vote.

 

[shuttlt]

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.

OK, but the claims that made it obvious seem very similar to the claims being made now. People reporting being turned away having already voted. Large numbers of votes heavily skewed to one candidate arriving in bulk. It all may be ********, lots of it probably is ********. I was responding to what I think was your claim that it wouldn't be possible, or was hard to imagine that one could organize such a thing given the number of people who would have to know. They seem to have had the street part of the operation down pretty well. They may have been stupid about overdoing it, but if they had just kept the fraud to 10%, or even 20% of the total count.... The fact that they were able to overdo it by so much almost makes it look like the street part is easy.

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.

OK, they probably weren't the smartest.... but read what the judge said....

"Short of writing 'Steal Me' on the envelopes, it is hard to see what more could be done to ensure their coming into the wrong hands.

It seems to me that if that criticism applies here, it certainly applies to the US with mass mailing of ballots.

Frauds of this magnitude require a considerable degree of organisation and manpower, not to mention supervision and co-ordination. It would be unthinkable for them to be the work of a few hothead activists, working behind the backs of the candidates and their party."

That seems to be suggesting that the judge believes more people were involved above the level of the idiots that got caught.

"We do not believe electoral fraud is confined to Birmingham, to the Labour Party or, most importantly, to particular communities. We are not alarmist and do not believe the outcome of, say, the general election is likely to be seriously affected by fraud. But we are concerned that the cases which have come to public attention so far may be only part of a wider problem."

The judge believes that a similar operation could be going on elsewhere, presumably somewhat more discretely. The idea that this kind of fraud could be going on at a large scale is not ludicrous.

Notice that the people apprehended were not exactly criminal masterminds.

I agree. They were clowns. And these clowns managed to organize enough voter fraud to overwhelm the capacity of the ballot boxes. If clowns can do that, more competent people could clearly manage to produce large numbers of filled in ballots this way. I'm not saying it happened. I'm not sure that I believe that it did happen. What I am arguing is that dismissing it as clearly logistically impossible is wrong.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Thread is too fast moving ... I would respond to some post about the PA lawsuit if I could find it in this mess of a thread...

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/13/business/porter-wright-trump-pennsylvania.html
Law Firm Stops Representing Trump Campaign in Pennsylvania Suit
Porter Wright said in a court filing that it would no longer represent the campaign in a federal lawsuit alleging widespread voter irregularities.
...
Previously, Porter Wright had filed a number of other actions in Pennsylvania courts challenging aspects of the state’s voting process. It isn’t clear if the firm will continue to represent Mr. Trump’s campaign on those cases. A Porter Wright representative didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on Friday.

In the words of Rick Wilson: ETTD (Everything Trump Touches Dies)

 

[Meadmaker]

I agree. They were clowns. And these clowns managed to organize enough voter fraud to overwhelm the capacity of the ballot boxes. If clowns can do that, more competent people could clearly manage to produce large numbers of filled in ballots this way. I'm not saying it happened. I'm not sure that I believe that. What I am arguing is that dismissing it as clearly logistically impossible is wrong.

More competent people would realize the impossibility of pulling off the scheme, and wouldn't attempt it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

- If the election was rigged why the hell did we lose the Senate, most specifically why is McConnell (who is arguably more of a problem than Trump himself) still in office?

- If the election was rigged why was it so close?

- If the election was rigged how/why did we only rig certain votes on the same ballot?

 

[varwoche]

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

Desperate times call for desperate measures.

 

[JoeMorgue]

That's why I've been calling this "fan fiction." No evidence has been provided so it's functionally the level of "I've thought up a way that the Democrats could have cheated, now prove to me they didn't do that."

 

[pgwenthold]

So the appeals court ruled that PA cannot allow "curing of votes" after Nov 9. The SoS had originally allowed it to go on until the 12th, so this is a "win" for Trump. Kind of. But not much.

First the law:
Federal Law allows voters to fix their ballots for mistakes, like incorrect birthdays or addresses (I saw an example, perhaps in another state, which said that the address had to be hand-written. Which means if you used a pre-printed return address label, it would not qualify; the law allows voters to come in and fix that, and they are allowed to hand-write their address to make the ballot acceptable. Sinister, right?)

The PA supreme court said that this can be done until 6 days after election day. So Nov 9, right? Well, not for sure.

The SoS argued that since mail-in ballots can be accepted if they arrive by Friday, that would be the date to base it on, so she said ballots could be cured until Nov 12.

The court has ruled that, no, that date is Nov 9.

OK, so what does that mean?

It means they aren't allowed to count 1) mail-in ballots with errors that 2) the voter tried to correct after Nov 9.

I haven't seen the official confirmation, but the reports I've seen have said that these votes have not actually been included in the totals yet. So that means that Pennsylvania will not add those votes to the current vote. It will not result in taking any votes away from the current totals (Biden leads by 60K).

Finally, the media has mostly dropped the ball on this, and failed to ask the important question: how many votes are we talking about? The only thing they are saying is to parrot from the press release, which says "It is not enough votes to affect the outcome of the election." That is an understatement.

1) They are not present in the current totals
2) Since they are mail-in votes, they would likely be largely Biden votes, so including them would only make the spread bigger, and
3) How many votes are we talking about anyway?

Remember, these are only mail-in ballots that a) have errors b) that were not corrected by Nov 9 and c) that the voter intended to fix. So what, a dozen, maybe? In the whole state?

I have seen one journalist do their job on this. They asked and they learned that the number of ballots that would be affected in Alleghany county is 0.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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?

In the Aston case turnout was up 350% in some areas. I think that kind of thing would be flagged as anomalous pretty quickly.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

- If the election was rigged why the hell did we lose the Senate, most specifically why is McConnell (who is arguably more of a problem than Trump himself) still in office?

Because it could only be easily rigged in democrat-run cities

- If the election was rigged why was it so close?

They were gonna make it a bigger win but poll watchers helped keep down their shenanigans ( see lawsuits for example)

- If the election was rigged how/why did we only rig certain votes on the same ballot?

It was only single vote ballots (just voted for president) that were manipulated / cheated

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

- If the election was rigged why the hell did we lose the Senate, most specifically why is McConnell (who is arguably more of a problem than Trump himself) still in office?

The rigging was only aimed at Trump, the democrats and deep state don't care about anything but destroying Trump

- If the election was rigged why was it so close?

Even the Deep Sate have their limits, overturning the 50 state Trump landslide by a few thousand votes in 5 or 6 states was a Herculean task

- If the election was rigged how/why did we only rig certain votes on the same ballot?

Misdirection, and first answer above.

 

[shuttlt]

The smaller the vote, the smaller the margins, the higher the risk. The US presidential election is almost the exact opposite, it must be one of the largest votes in the world.

Sure, and yet it comes down to individual states, counties and sometimes precincts. The number of votes those clowns were manufacturing could flip a state.

 

[shuttlt]

In the Aston case turnout was up 350% in some areas. I think that kind of thing would be flagged as anomalous pretty quickly.

Thanks. That would do it. They were busy little bees.

 

[shuttlt]

More competent people would realize the impossibility of pulling off the scheme, and wouldn't attempt it.

That's not what the judge in the case thought. The claim on the forum seems to be that they were caught because they produced so many fake votes that they upped the turnout by 350%. Given that those clowns were able to produce that incredible volume of votes, wouldn't a more competent, or less hard working, clown succeed by sticking to a more modest volume? Again, I don't see what is difficult about what they did, or what in the process would catch them except the signature.

I feel like we are stuck in a loop where all examples of voter/election fraud are counted as evidence that such fraud isn't possible since by definition given that we know about them they were caught and hence the system works. This effectively excludes the possibility of using evidence from other elections to at least show that what is claimed is possible.