Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election

[Dave Rogers]

Even his all caps tweet had some kind of basis. He was not accurately conveying the reliability of the data and had turned it up to 11, but he hadn't made it up.

Don't be ridiculous. Trump tweeted that he had won the election.

Dave

 

[Darat]

It depends on the community you are doing it in. Many communities know perfectly well who the criminals are and don't talk, or actively lie about it.

We are talking about electoral fraud - remember?

 

[Ambrosia]

Trump doesn't have to show fraud. Error would do as well. The misconfigured tally machine with the 6000 in correctly assigned votes doesn't seem to be fraud, but it all counts.

It was an error. It was quickly spotted and corrected. There are systems in place to make sure that the vote totals are correct and this error being caught is *good evidence that those systems are in fact working*.

"But f you extrapolate the size of this error to other places using the same software then..."

No. It was a user error not a software glitch, and it was caught and very quickly corrected.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

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.

It is entirely 'possible' that fraud occurred. The question is what evidence is there that it did take place, and is the evidence reliable and does it actually point to fraud.

So far the evidence seems to be a few dozen nutbags claiming they saw stuff which may or may not have happened and the trend seems to be that any court cases are being dismissed fairly quickly as being without substance by the courts.

In the absence of such evidence I'm confused as to what you want to happen next?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Sure, but lots of the claims you would only really be able to evidence with an audit.

And the result, absent the burden of proof on the accuser, is that every election would have to be audited. The accuser could then claim that the audit was rigged in the same way as the original election, or that the election had been rigged in a way that the audit could not detect, leading to infinite regress. Democracy would then become unworkable because it's a logical impossibility to prove that an election was not rigged in some way that cannot be detected with the tools used to detect it, so no election result would ever be accepted by the losing side. This is why there is a burden of proof on the accuser, and why, without credible evidence, these claims are getting thrown out of court.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

In the absence of such evidence I'm confused as to what you want to happen next?

Let me guess. All states where fraud has been alleged and not conclusively disproven to instruct their electors to vote for Trump?

Dave

 

[acbytesla]

Delete

 

[quadraginta]

"Prove to me that every tax return isn't falsified."
"Prove to me my neighbor isn't intercepting my Amazon packages and replacing them with exact duplicates."

Now I'm worried.

My neighbor has (all too often) gotten my packages by mistake. He brings them over and drops them off on my porch when that happens.

Should I be suspicious that he is replacing them with exact duplicates?

Worse still, I have gotten packages of his once in a while. Should I be replacing them with exact duplicates?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[johnny karate]

Sure, but lots of the claims you would only really be able to evidence with an audit. We'll see. Even if there was enough fraud to tip the election, it doesn't bother me to the point I wouldn't accept the result after inauguration day.

Election officials across the country, both Democrat and Republican, and the federal agency that oversees election security have declared that there is no evidence of significant fraud.

These are the people and agencies specifically tasked with looking for this evidence.

They have found none.

None.

 

[Ambrosia]

Even his all caps tweet had some kind of basis. He was not accurately conveying the reliability of the data and had turned it up to 11, but he hadn't made it up.

Yes, yes he did make it up.

He's on record as having told 24000+ (and counting) lies during his term so far.

It what he does. He lies and makes **** up and people keep taking what he says as having some basis in fact.
It doesn't. He is making it up.
There is no evidence of election fraud large enough to flip several states so that he gets 4 more years.

He's surrounded by sycophants who repeat his ******** and bluster, TV networks keep repeating it, but it's all made up.

When it really gets down it it, in court, where lawyers face *very serious* penalties for making stuff up, or lying to a judge, all of the lawyers acting on his behalf have admitted there is no evidence to support their claims, so his lawsuits keep getting dismissed.

He's making it up, he's taking his supporters for fools and using the whole thing as a way to generate even more money.

 

[Bob001]

Here's what real election fraud look like:

In Florida, where President Donald Trump gained crucial support among Latino voters, his campaign ran a YouTube ad in Spanish making the explosive — and false — claim that Venezuela’s ruling clique was backing Democratic nominee Joe Biden.

YouTube showed the ad more than 100,000 times in Florida in the eight days leading up to the election, even after The Associated Press published a fact-check debunking the Trump campaign’s claim. Actually, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro expressed opposition to both presidential candidates.

https://www.propublica.org/article/...ampaign=majorinvestigations&utm_content=river

 

[shuttlt]

It was an error. It was quickly spotted and corrected. There are systems in place to make sure that the vote totals are correct and this error being caught is *good evidence that those systems are in fact working*.

They weren't caught by robust processes. The 6000 vote one was caught by somebody saying "there is no way this county went Democrat" and they checked.

"But f you extrapolate the size of this error to other places using the same software then..."

No. It was a user error not a software glitch, and it was caught and very quickly corrected.

It is the interaction of the user and software. If the software has so few checks that it can assign the votes to the wrong candidate because the operator used an incurred process to configure the voting machines, and you only find out because the county flipped and somebody called it out, then there is the possibility for such errors happening elsewhere and not getting caught.

 

[Bob001]

Election officials across the country, both Democrat and Republican, and the federal agency that oversees election security have declared that there is no evidence of significant fraud.

These are the people and agencies specifically tasked with looking for this evidence.

They have found none.

None.

Link:

A group of federal, state and local officials working with a Department of Homeland Security agency directly contradicted President Trump’s claims about voter fraud. Republicans are beginning to acknowledge President-elect Joe Biden despite Mr. Trump’s refusal to concede.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/1...ction-was-the-most-secure-in-american-history

 

[Vixen]

That does not appear to be the actual twitter of Donald Trump Jr.
That account has less than 1k followers and only seems to have existed for about an hour.

There is no mention of this on his actual twitter.
https://twitter.com/DonaldJTrumpJr?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

It now says 'Account suspended'. Whoops!

 

[johnny karate]

They weren't caught by robust processes. The 6000 vote one was caught by somebody saying "there is no way this county went Democrat" and they checked.

It is the interaction of the user and software. If the software has so few checks that it can assign the votes to the wrong candidate because the operator used an incurred process to configure the voting machines, and you only find out because the county flipped and somebody called it out, then there is the possibility for such errors happening elsewhere and not getting caught.

Election officials across the country, both Democrat and Republican, and the federal agency that oversees election security have declared that there is no evidence of significant fraud.

These are the people and agencies specifically tasked with looking for this evidence.

They have found none.

None.

 

[Darat]

There are presumably things we all don't know about the security of any given precinct in the election. Hence we'd better shut down the thread because we are in a quandary of epistemic doubt? This is an argument against all comparisons and examples since there is always the possibility that there is a significant difference between the cases that we aren't aware of. The forum doesn't run like that on topics that people aren't emotionally invested in.

If you had read some of the court transcripts you would know what at least some
of the security processes and checks where in place.

It is relevant since it shows how easy it is for a bunch of clowns to hoover up thousands of ballots and get them filled out. I'm not clear that anybody has come up with an argument against this beyond if they turn up at the election office with a uhaul and start unloading the votes in front of people it may be too obvious.

It shows ‘how easy it is for a bunch of clowns....” with the system that was used in that election i.e. to that particular system. If you want to use that as an example of how fraud could have happened in the 2020 USA GE you need to show your work.

Darat, you are emotionally invested in this

I do enjoy learning new things and enjoy a good discussion and this thread has in some parts been a good discussion and I’ve learnt a lot so yes I’ve “emotional investment”. Are you saying you don’t have a similar emotional investment? If so I am very curious as to your motivation for participating in this thread.

and are applying a standard of evidence that you wouldn't ask for elsewhere.

I assume you can prove that, or is it another claim you are making without any actual research?

I am not arguing that anything like the UK case took place in any particular precinct.

Ok.

All I am saying is that rejecting the idea that it could happen when it has happened in other places

And this is where you keep tripping yourself up. If you want to claim that the UK example is an example of what could happen in the USA 2020 GE then you need to show how the same conditions apply. That is what you keep failing to do.

and demanding knowledge that only an election official in the specific precinct would have effectively takes this discussion outside the realms of what can be had on a forum like this. ...snip...

That isn’t true. For example if you had read the court transcripts linked to in this thread you would have learned about some security and sops in place in PA, plus the legislation that describes the election is available online as are many of the explanation documents.

That you don’t want to do the research does not mean the information is not accessible to you and everyone else.

...snip...
My claim is that it isn't that hard to harvest up a few thousand ballots and get them filled out....snip...

In the UK election you brought up or in the USA 2020 GE contested states?

...snip...

It is a big topic, and one can't be an expert on everything. As is often the case on the forum new material is appearing, counter evidence to things that appeared established comes to light and people make errors and misremember things. If you look I have been the one providing the primary sources to the thread and listening to 2 hour interrogation recordings. What have you done in terms of research and contributing to the thread that makes you think you are in a position to throw your weight around? You guys are taking the approach of the Monty Python Argument sketch and are automatic gainsaying anything that is suggested that lends any degree of credence to Trumps claims. I don't understand the attitude.

You seem to just want to be able to make any claims you like without supporting them and have them taken as facts. Each time I have asked you to support one of your claims you haven’t done so.

I know you haven’t read the court transcripts linked to in this thread which surely have to be important? Or the actual documents submitted to the courts. You don’t even know where some of your claims come from - remember 70 witnesses?

All I am doing is asking you to support your claims, nothing more.

 

[Meadmaker]

They weren't caught by robust processes. The 6000 vote one was caught by somebody saying "there is no way this county went Democrat" and they checked.

In other words, they didn't even get to the point of robust processes, because they caught it even before they used the robust processes.

 

[pgwenthold]

In other words, they didn't even get to the point of robust processes, because they caught it even before they used the robust processes.

Are we really back to this?

"A 6000 vote error was caught immediately and corrected, so that means there might be a 20000 vote error out there somewhere that hasn't been found?"

 

[Darat]

Don't be ridiculous. Trump tweeted that he had won the election.

Dave

He went even further and said they should stop counting!

 

[shuttlt]

And the result, absent the burden of proof on the accuser, is that every election would have to be audited.

No. For the same reason that Nixon didn't push the recount publicly and eventually backed down. There is a political cost to doing it. Eisenhower told him he would look like a sore loser and didn't back him. He wanted to run again, and the party didn't want to damage itself.

The accuser could then claim that the audit was rigged in the same way as the original election, or that the election had been rigged in a way that the audit could not detect, leading to infinite regress.

Yes, that is possible. However at that point it's a question of what the people, the individual states and congress decide to do about it.

Democracy would then become unworkable because it's a logical impossibility to prove that an election was not rigged in some way that cannot be detected with the tools used to detect it, so no election result would ever be accepted by the losing side.

That's not an issue about recounts and audits, that is an issue of whether the losing side believes and is willing to accept the results. You can't make people believe the result by refusing to investigate it and pointing to some rulebook that says you don't have to. I agree that audits may not fix the lack of belief.

This is why there is a burden of proof on the accuser, and why, without credible evidence, these claims are getting thrown out of court.

The burden of proof is on the accuser in court. As with impeachment, ultimately an election is a political process.