Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election

[The Don]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

And that's the "Well if bought off the refs that's the same thing as playing fairly" mentality.

You can't "Don't hate the player, hate the game" us into a dictatorship.

It seems that the GOP can - or at least is willing to give it the good ol' college try.

IMO it will be devastating for US democracy if the GOP are successful and President Trump remains in the White House - unless of course they are actually able to provide evidence which shows hundreds of thousands of votes cast illegally.

Of course I suppose they can change the definition of illegal post-hoc to, for example, throw out all postal votes in Pennsylvania.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

If the two teams can't agree on what the rules of the game are then the congressional delegations are the final ref. I'd be stunned if it got there.

The two teams agreed to the rules. Ahead of time. The Pennsylvania legislature passed laws about how to operate the elections. They did that. They followed the rules.

Trump is now crying the rules aren't fair because he lost.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

If the two teams can't agree on what the rules of the game are then the congressional delegations are the final ref. I'd be stunned if it got there.

I suppose behind them the final final ref is the People and the fallout that would come from what ever is decided. Same with impeachment. Each congress creature has to go back to their state and answer for their vote.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by MinnesotaBrant

I fired an employee at my store but never followed through on the paperwork after he refused to leave so I let him stay which was a disaster. I wonder if we are gonna end up with two presidents come Jan 20. The fact that so many countries aren't calling Biden is telling; they must know something that we don't.

So you didn't really fire him. You just said "Get out," and he said "You can't do that." But in the case of Trump, our paperwork is in order. And world leaders are congratulating Biden, just not the ones who have been his best pals. Putin hasn't said a word.

Quote:

(CNN)A stream of world leaders congratulated President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris on their victory in the 2020 US presidential election on Saturday, with many striking a jubilant tone on social media.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/07/ameri...ntl/index.html

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I suppose behind them the final final ref is the People and the fallout that would come from what ever is decided. Same with impeachment. Each congress creature has to go back to their state and answer for their vote.

You mean the voice of the people that the Right isn't accepting and lying about and fighting?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

The only way to find out would be to go look. Somebody should go look, with witnesses representing the stakeholders close enough to witness the checks.

The only way to find out if you have committed pedophilia is to go look. And until we have looked, the proposition that you have committed pedophilia is equally valid to the proposition that you haven’t.

Agreed?

If not, why?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

The two teams agreed to the rules. Ahead of time. The Pennsylvania legislature passed laws about how to operate the elections. They did that. They followed the rules.

The rules are not necessarily 100% precise, or consistent. I believe Trump argued before the election that late ballots shouldn't be counted based on a constitutional argument and the supreme course in their wisom decided not to make a decision until after the election.

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Trump is now crying the rules aren't fair because he lost.

I think Trumps argument is that the rules say he won. You are disagreeing with him about the rules. The way that disagreement gets decided seems to be first legally within the state, then the supreme court, then politically in the state, and then politically in congress.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

You mean the voice of the people that the Right isn't accepting and lying about and fighting?

I think the argument is about whether the result represents the voice of the people. You are assuming your own conclusions.

[Olmstead]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

The rules are not necessarily 100% precise, or consistent. I believe Trump argued before the election that late ballots shouldn't be counted based on a constitutional argument and the supreme course in their wisom decided not to make a decision until after the election.


I think Trumps argument is that the rules say he won. You are disagreeing with him about the rules. The way that disagreement gets decided seems to be first legally within the state, then the supreme court, then politically in the state, and then politically in congress.

What rules where?

Trump's argument is that he won because he's Trump, so people should go find something, anything, that will make it so. Do you disagree that this is Trump's position?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I think the argument is about whether the result represents the voice of the people. You are assuming your own conclusions.

Upon what evidence is this argument based?

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I think Trumps argument is that the rules say he won. You are disagreeing with him about the rules.

I wonder in what universe Trump could possibly be construed as saying anything that coherent. He initially claimed that he'd won before the ballot counting had even been completed in key states, then demanded that the count be stopped in the states he was winning but continued in the states he was losing. He then got a bit confused and started demanding that the count stopped in states he was losing. He's now saying that the states in which he lost should change the rules to make it so he won, but has no interest in applying rules consistently. There is no rationale to his claim that he's won, no invocation of what the rules are or should be; he's simply expecting that if he screams "I won!" loudly enough and often enough, everybody will award him the win. He's a spoiled child whom nobody has ever stood up to. Failing to stand up to him now will make him even worse.

Dave

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I think Trumps argument is that the rules say he won.

The rules would say he won, if they were the rules of Quiddich, and Mitch McConnell caught the Golden Snitch sometime in the late evening of Election Day.

Unfortunately for Trump's claim, neither of those conditions appear to be true.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Quote:

Pres. Trump’s legal team has challenged a grand total of 180 rejected ballots in Maricopa County. Biden leads in AZ by 14,746 votes -

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...ts/6229767002/

Really closing that lead!

These kinds of tactics would work in a Bush v Gore type of scenario. Recall that Florida was decided by a margin of 537 votes. Biden's lead is simply too big here for any such strategy to pay off.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...ts/6229767002/

Really closing that lead!

It looks like they've determined that there are 180 votes that may have been incorrectly rejected, with no information as to whom they were votes for. The end result may as easily be to increase Biden's vote as Trump's.

Dave

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

It looks like they've determined that there are 180 votes that may have been incorrectly rejected, with no information as to whom they were votes for. The end result may as easily be to increase Biden's vote as Trump's.

Dave

Well, given the current distribution in mail-in votes in Arizona, we would expect that batch to make a difference of a 20 votes in Trump's favor. They only need to find 1000 more examples and they will take Arizona.

That would bring Biden's EC vote count down to 295.

[slyjoe]

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Well, given the current distribution in mail-in votes in Arizona, we would expect that batch to make a difference of a 20 votes in Trump's favor. They only need to find 1000 more examples and they will take Arizona.

That would bring Biden's EC vote count down to 295.

Trump picked up 140 votes on Monday out of 6K votes. There were 38K left, and Biden leads by almost 15K. Trump's people should be able to do the math.

[The Great Zaganza]

Why do I get the feeling that this kind of counting is going to continue right up until November 2024?

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Why do I get the feeling that this kind of counting is going to continue right up until November 2024?

I don't think so. Trump may deny the legitimacy of any result in which he isn't the winner, but his consent is not required for states to certify their results. They will certify and the electoral college will vote regardless of what Trump says. He can try to keep rehashing the same old nonsense, but the states will move right along without him.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by Olmstead

I don't remember Hillary shouting fraud after the election and the Democrats launching a blind search for irregularities.

Not only did Hillary concede the election the next morning but Obama invited Trump to the White House to begin the transition. It should be noted that Hillary lost Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania by smaller margins then Trump just lost them.

[slyjoe]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Not only did Hillary concede the election the next morning but Obama invited Trump to the White House to begin the transition. It should be noted that Hillary lost Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania by smaller margins then Trump just lost them.

Did you run a Benford Law analysis on 2016 results, hmmm?

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I think the argument is about whether the result represents the voice of the people. You are assuming your own conclusions.

If the question is about "the voice of the people," Biden won almost five million more votes than Trump. Biden won more votes than any previous candidate in history. "The people" are speaking pretty loudly.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Why do I get the feeling that this kind of counting is going to continue right up until November 2024?

I don't think so. This will fade. Either that, or this is the end of democracy in the United States. In which eventuality, votes won't matter.

[CORed]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

The rules are not necessarily 100% precise, or consistent. I believe Trump argued before the election that late ballots shouldn't be counted based on a constitutional argument and the supreme course in their wisom decided not to make a decision until after the election.


I think Trumps argument is that the rules say he won. You are disagreeing with him about the rules. The way that disagreement gets decided seems to be first legally within the state, then the supreme court, then politically in the state, and then politically in congress.

The rules that Trump claims were broken are rules that exist only in his head, with the primary, but unspoken one being that he has to win.

[acbytesla]

Originally Posted by slyjoe

Did you run a Benford Law analysis on 2016 results, hmmm?

Frankly, I have absolutely no idea WTF Benford's law is or what people are talking about. I also don't believe that almost anyone bringing it up to throw shade on the election do either. I'm not a mathematician or statistician. It sounds like jibber jabber to me.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by CORed

The rules that Trump claims were broken are rules that exist only in his head, with the primary, but unspoken one being that he has to win.

In that case, I assume he will be unsuccessful.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by Bob001

If the question is about "the voice of the people," Biden won almost five million more votes than Trump. Biden won more votes than any previous candidate in history. "The people" are speaking pretty loudly.

Yes but if the millions of illegal votes are stripped out...,

[ServiceSoon]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

As far as I know, there is no evidence that you are a pedophile.

But I guess there should be an investigation to be sure. Agreed?

The police should only investigate if you or somebody else makes that claim. I would even go as far as saying you have duty to report what you know about me or anybody else being a pedophile. If you swear on your testimony that would lend even more validity to your claim. The police don't randomly think up possible crimes and investigate. Something or somebody prompts them to investigate. That is why these claims of investigating invisible dragons and such are disingenuous attempts at mockery. Police investigate on hearsay all the time.

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Your fallacy is: equivocation. An official investigation cannot be mandated unless sufficient evidence is offered, which may have been uncovered by a private organisation investigating on its own behalf.

Dave

You didn't read the historical example of actual election fraud that took place in 1982 Chicago, did you? Those true events and investigation will allow you to speak about voter fraud investigations with more intelligence of how things have actually occurred, and less posturing, narrative selection, and general tomfoolery.

Equivocation is calling two different things by the same name. Here is a equivocation from Wiki:

Originally Posted by Wiki

Since only man is rational.
And no woman is a man.
Therefore, no woman is rational.[1]

Show me how my statement below is an equivocation.

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon

What a quandary you have constructed there! You cannot investigate unless you have evidence, but you cannot get evidence unless you investigate

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Frankly, I have absolutely no idea WTF Benford's law is or what people are talking about. I also don't believe that almost anyone bringing it up to throw shade on the election do either. I'm not a mathematician or statistician. It sounds like jibber jabber to me.

It's a perfectly respectable piece of statistical analysis, and in the right situation a useful one in detecting whether data is suspicious enough to warrant further investigation. It would be extremely unsafe to consider it sufficient evidence for anything on its own, and there is quite clearly not a consensus amongst experts that it's applicable to election results, as evidenced by the papers referenced upthread. No Other clearly thinks otherwise, but mathematical proof is not determined by who shouts the loudest.

Dave

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon

Show me how my statement below is an equivocation.

I already did. Would you like me to explain it more simply?

Dave

[The Don]

What are the specifics behind Rudy Giuliani's claim of 300,000 illegal votes in Philadelphia?

Is there hard evidence, or is it the usual baseless speculation?

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Why do I get the feeling that this kind of counting is going to continue right up until November 2024?

It really can't. Once the states certify their counts and the Electoral College votes, it's over.

[Trebuchet]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

Why do I get the feeling that this kind of counting is going to continue right up until November 2024?

Counting, no. Whining, yes, certainly.

[Dave Rogers]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

Counting, no. Whining, yes, certainly.

Hopefully it'll continue at least up to November 2028.

Dave

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

Counting, no. Whining, yes, certainly.

That's what I mean.

In 2024, there will still be people claiming that, actually, Trump got 270 votes.

[Trebuchet]

By the way, I skipped to the last page of the thread from about page 8 and found the content indistinguishable. As I do with some other threads, I shall now put it on semi-ignore, clicking only to the last post instead of first new post!

[Explorer]

A blow to Trump?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...box=1605019318

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by Explorer

A blow to Trump?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...box=1605019318

Quote:

“It is critical, however, that candidates act responsibly by presenting and arguing legitimate claims before the courts, not unsubstantiated or harmful speculation in the public media.”

It doesn't matter to Trumpets

[pgwenthold]

This thread has been focused on the lame attempts of accusations in the media, but is there a good list of the actual court cases in the works?

[No Other]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Since you claim expertise in this, let's construct a hypothetical.

I do not claim to be an Expert.

Quote:

Suppose there is an election in which all counting districts are chosen so that the expected vote total from each is 1000 votes, and the votes counted fall within 10% of this figure. Suppose also that the two candidates each poll close to 50% overall, and the variance between counting districts turns out to be within 20% of this figure (i.e. all districts report between 30/70 and 70/30 votes for all candidates). Based only on the above information, would it be possible to use Benford's Law on the first digits of the numbers of votes cast to determine whether the results were, or were not, suspect?

I'll supply the answer later, if anyone hasn't got it immediately.

Dave

Benford's Law does not determine anything; it is a tool to be used as a comparison.

[No Other]

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

It's a perfectly respectable piece of statistical analysis, and in the right situation a useful one in detecting whether data is suspicious enough to warrant further investigation. It would be extremely unsafe to consider it sufficient evidence for anything on its own, and there is quite clearly not a consensus amongst experts that it's applicable to election results, as evidenced by the papers referenced upthread. No Other clearly thinks otherwise, but mathematical proof is not determined by who shouts the loudest.

Dave

You are correct when you say proof is not determined by who shouts the loudest.