• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

2020 United States presidential election - Conspiracy theories, alleged fraud, etc

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh goodness gracious, not in front of the children. They are so impressionable

Yes Bubba. We want to teach our children the art of oratory, principled debate and advocacy for claims they make.

Your posts are showing them how to spray last year's Q-Anon tags on trains and buses, for no reason other than to seek attention.

:big:
 

Attachments

  • Q-Anon sent me.jpg
    Q-Anon sent me.jpg
    87 KB · Views: 7
Well then, that's just dumb. What is shows is that people move, and some places grow in population.

But thanks for posting that. I thought it was a genuine problem. I knew it wasn't evidence of vote fraud, but the sheer number of issues seemed like a big problem.

It is somewhat of a concern. But I would argue that it is not a significant one.

Judicial Watch is a conservative group. They have won some lawsuits and gotten consent agreements claiming that states are not purging voter registration records as required under the National Voter Registration Act.

I disagree somewhat with the assessment in the Snopes article. This isn't comparing apples and oranges. Maybe comparing Red Delicious and Granny Smith, but it is still and apples to apples comparison, to the extent of what it is actually studying.

The population values are obviously not current population values. Of course, even the census is not a totally accurate count. And these are using estimates from multi-year surveys. But it looks to me like they are fairly accurate. That's close enough to make some reasonable assessments.

The egregious problem with the Judicial Watch study is that the voter to population percentage is based on total registered voters in a county, which includes inactive registered voters.

As populations change, voter registrations becoming inactive is what we expect. If you use their data and look at active voter registrations the issues are much smaller.

I tried to get the data but the original data is very large and the Judicial Watch data is downloadable but it for some reason is in PDF format instead of something usable like CSV, and the PDF has inconsistent formatting make it difficult to convert.

Just looking at the data, I would guess that using the proper active voter registration would reduce their over 100% by at least 90%.

That still leaves a number of counties with more active voter registrations than population. But some of those could be differences because of the older population data, or the way registrations and populations values or calculated (for example, students, who may be eligible to register at their parent's address or their college address), or other factors.

And for some of the counties with declining populations it is just practical that it takes time for the registrations to get purged. A county may know that there on more registered voters than the population, but how do they find out who should be inactivated?

How much time and money and resources do we need to put into making things perfect when everything seems to be working very well with extremely little problems?
 
How much time and money and resources do we need to put into making things perfect when everything seems to be working very well with extremely little problems?

It may be a bit big brother-ish, but maybe just have a national residency database, where every person living in America has a name, address, and birth date on file with the government, and automatically register everyone eligible to vote. I can't see that being that difficult or that intrusive. The vast majority of us already give the states that information via our driver's license, and the use of a driver's license as identification is so common that every state has created state ID's for people to use if they don't have driver's licenses.

I get that this sort of national ID system is something that people have historically balked at in the US, but when it comes right down to it, all of that information is already available through a variety of public and private records.

In terms of the way you formulated the question, I'm pretty sure that the total cost would go down compared to the way we do things now.
 
It may be a bit big brother-ish, but maybe just have a national residency database, where every person living in America has a name, address, and birth date on file with the government, and automatically register everyone eligible to vote. I can't see that being that difficult or that intrusive. The vast majority of us already give the states that information via our driver's license, and the use of a driver's license as identification is so common that every state has created state ID's for people to use if they don't have driver's licenses.

I get that this sort of national ID system is something that people have historically balked at in the US, but when it comes right down to it, all of that information is already available through a variety of public and private records.

In terms of the way you formulated the question, I'm pretty sure that the total cost would go down compared to the way we do things now.

Many people have concerns about the government having that much information about people. Many state and federal agencies have lots of information about people, but they are not allowed to share that information between agencies.

A federal agency can only collected personal information for a specific and approved government purpose. Federal agencies, and usually state agencies, don't access data from other agencies because that data was only collected for the specific purpose of another agency.

There is a bit of a misconception that any data that a government has on a person is available to all of the agencies of that government. That is not how it works.

It is always surprising that people making certain claims can't understand why they have to provide information that the government already has. It might seem that the government could check their own records to confirm what you are saying. Or that you don't need to file something again when the government has that exact same information on file.

But people have established a government that is only allowed to use personal information for specific and justifiable purposes. I think if that was not controlled, certain government officials, including even possibly the President of the United States, could utilize that information to control the citizens of the country to much detriment.

In my experience working with government laws and computer systems it is often very frustrating. It would be must easier and vastly more efficient and even much more accurate if all these systems used the same data and could check against each other.

But that same experience reveals what a danger it would be if someone could had access or even control of those systems.

It is a challenge. The data has to be controlled. It is controlled by processes and procedures. Sometimes those don't match up with the ways we want to use data. Sometimes it would be better for certain things if we allowed that data to be used in other ways, but while that may improve one thing, it may open a door for much greater harm in another way.
 
It may be a bit big brother-ish, but maybe just have a national residency database, where every person living in America has a name, address, and birth date on file with the government, and automatically register everyone eligible to vote.

We have exactly that, an Electoral Roll that is managed by the Electoral Commission.

When there are elections due to happen, the EC sends out enrolment check forms to everyone in the country at their last known address. The instructions are for individuals to check the forms, and if they are correct, throw them away, and if they are not correct, then correct them and return them in a provided return envelope.

If you have moved since the last election and it is to a different electorate, the EC automatically updates you to the correct electorate.
 
Last edited:

I just want you to know that over the course of this year, I gave about $750 towards the election of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. So, when you're hurting and suffering over the fact that Biden is president, I want you to know, in a small way, I caused your pain. While you're lamenting the Biden presidency, I want you to know that I was thinking about how much I wanted Trump supporters to suffer when I made the donations. I love how much you're going to be hurting on 20 January at 1201hrs EST.
 
Last edited:
The population values are obviously not current population values. Of course, even the census is not a totally accurate count. And these are using estimates from multi-year surveys. But it looks to me like they are fairly accurate. That's close enough to make some reasonable assessments.

The egregious problem with the Judicial Watch study is that the voter to population percentage is based on total registered voters in a county, which includes inactive registered voters.

As populations change, voter registrations becoming inactive is what we expect. If you use their data and look at active voter registrations the issues are much smaller.

Change in total population is only part of the issue. Crudely, it appears that about 1 in 45 Americans moves to a different state every year (crudely = I looked at data for 2 recent years).

As I understand how "inactive voter" status works (someone can correct me if I'm wrong), states designate a certain number of years (4 in Virginia, 6 in Michigan) after which if a registered voter hasn't voted they are moved to "inactive" status. But "inactive" voters still count towards the total number of registered voters. "Inactive" voters are not purged from the registered voter list unless they don't vote in the next 2 federal elections after being moved to "inactive" status, in other words, for at least 2 more years (meaning that a voter in Virginia would have to go at least 6 years without voting to be purged from the voter role and a voter in Michigan would have to go at least 8 years). This means that, unless there is some mechanism for states to notify other states if someone has registered to vote in that state, it is quite plausible that 10 to 20 percent of the people on the voter role in a state no longer reside in that state (and this does not count people who died).

That still leaves a number of counties with more active voter registrations than population. But some of those could be differences because of the older population data, or the way registrations and populations values or calculated (for example, students, who may be eligible to register at their parent's address or their college address), or other factors.

I didn't look for data on inter-county migration, but I do know that about 1 in 9 Americans changes residence every year. Presumably, if a voter moves to a different county and registers there the county that they moved from is notified, but I don't know this for sure. Otherwise, counties face the time constraints mentioned above for purging voters from the role.
 
Last edited:
Many people have concerns about the government having that much information about people. Many state and federal agencies have lots of information about people, but they are not allowed to share that information between agencies.
<snip for brevity>
It is a challenge. The data has to be controlled. It is controlled by processes and procedures. Sometimes those don't match up with the ways we want to use data. Sometimes it would be better for certain things if we allowed that data to be used in other ways, but while that may improve one thing, it may open a door for much greater harm in another way.

It may be that exactly what I proposed is not the right way to do it. Obviously, people in the relevant fields would have to study the proposals and implement safeguards, and maybe simply maintaining a separate national voter registration system would be the way to go. It would still be cheaper and easier for everyone, and no more intrusive than our current system.
 
Seriously

Actual skeptics do not say it is not over because well, you know.

I think y'all keep on chanting variations of 'its over' because you so want it to be over, while knowing it is not over as it still could go south on you because as you know Trump will do everything in his power to disappoint your home flock, on principle, because he is convinced it was rigged.

Here’s Trump’s top dog Rudy Giuliani at a hearing last week, filling his adult diaper live on camera.

Here’s one of Giuliani’s star witnesses, after three too many mar-go-ritas from the local Chili’s, where she almost certainly asked to speak to the manger before being thrown out.
 
Charmer !


I just want you to know that over the course of this year, I gave about $750 towards the election of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. So, when you're hurting and suffering over the fact that Biden is president, I want you to know, in a small way, I caused your pain. While you're lamenting the Biden presidency, I want you to know that I was thinking about how much I wanted Trump supporters to suffer when I made the donations. I love how much you're going to be hurting on 20 January at 1201hrs EST.



That is just about the most kind and sweetest wish one could imagine
 
Ya know, I kinda feel sorry for Bubba and his like.

Having heavily invested in a failed idea, it is difficult to back out now. This happens over and over. Look at Jones, or Koresh, for example. None or very few bailed because they were so invested already.

But that is how scams like Q work. Suck the marks in and make it as difficult as possible to get out.
 
Well, I'd have to read it, alas I dont have time for that, what with all the top level planning sessions.

So, you don't know that is sounds like. Curious that you would even post it, then.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom