2020 Election Fraud Roundup

Post Reply New Topic

This claim reminds me very much of NT's who DON'T have autism, or know anyone with autism, or have ever met anyone with autism, or have any training regarding autism, or any other type of training at all, claiming to be an "expert" on autism.

"I know I've literally never been to america, but I've read a few books and vastly overestimate my knowledge, so NATURALLY I know more... Im aN ExPeRt!! !"

You're more than welcome to opine, regardless of your degree of knowledge - but a fish's opinion of a picture of a desert only carries so much weight, and I'd just as soon trust a camel in that regard.

---

There's still many claims of "fraud" floating about, but not a whole lot of evidence to support them. REAL evidence, not supposed evidence that needs intensive investigating just to determine whether it's real or fake. I recall someone making a comment in a thread about a "snipe hunt" - isn't that exactly what making people chase down fake evidence *is*? "Go investigate that! It's fake, but do it anyways! That'll keep ya busy!" Wild goose chase.

Pretending that all things are exactly equal may help the illusion of "impartiality", but the fact remains is that falsely equating things does take a side - the side that wants to pretend they're not worse. "I am impartial - I just favor one side more cos they're better, and the other side is worse, even though they're both equally bad. Impartial!"

The analysis assumes that batches of mail-in votes were counted in the order in which they were received from the Post Office. In states where mail-in ballots could not even begin to be counted until Election Day, can we be sure that the ballots were counted in incoming chronological order, rather than, say, in order of whatever happened to be most convenient to grab out of the storage room?

The analysis does not categorize states based on whether the counting of mail-in ballots began on Election Day or earlier. One might expect to see different patterns in these two cases.

Anyhow, if indeed it is correct to assume that mail-in ballots were always counted in chronological order in all states, I can think of at least one other possible reason why the pattern in "the ones suspected of fraud and ... Virginia" might be different from other states. Those states are all swing states, which means the Biden campaign (and pro-Biden superPACS such as the Lincoln project) probably spent a lot more advertising money in those states than elsewhere, possibly including a big advertising blitz right on Election Day itself. The Trump campaign was incapable of a similarly big last-minute advertising blitz, due to earlier financial mismanagement.

It's part of the model, but it isn't central to it, it's a way to explain why you might see a slight Rep. lean as counting goes on. What is key is you would expect the ratio of results from absentee ballots to much more uniform than the results from walk-ins. This part, at least, seems pretty reasonable to me. If not the graphs become confusing... what is it we are actually seeing in those very uniform data points?

Another line of attack is the "bellwether districts" whose results often predict the final winner. I put less stock in this one, but it's still interesting.

Yeah turns out I wasn't plotting it correctly. I just plotted the ratio of the rolling total like a dumbass. Original guy figured out the ratio of each vote report and plotted that, which is why it looks different, I think anyway.

Also more disclosure on the data itself - its accuracy is being disputed. It isn't raw data from the counters, it's data collected, summed and potentially fiddled with by the NYT for their election counting displays. All kinds of strange anomalies like votes disappearing without apparent reason are popping up (and being used as evidence of fraud in the aforementioned tsunami). These could be unreported vote data "corrections" or corrections made by the NYT for mistakes they made. While the analysis is still interesting, it probably isn't data that would pass muster in a court case. Meandering back to fraud agnosticism here...

I’m going to try calling this The_Walrus’s law: people who claim to be equally opposed to the Democrats and Republicans are always partisan Republicans.

In this particular case, you’re comparing advocating for democratic reforms to advocating for throwing away votes. This is a very clear case of partiality.


I think you’re overstating the uniqueness of Republics. A Republic is a Democracy without a monarch. It has nothing to do with an electoral college. There are many Republicans in the world. This is a total red herring.

Most or all Western European countries were formed from multiple countries.

A stronger argument would be that some modern democracies that have an elected head of state do use an electoral college of sorts. Germany, Italy, and India are all examples. However, I would note these countries are Parliamentary democracies where power really rests with the Prime Minister or Chancellor. The President is a ceremonial role. And none of them have an electoral college that is as undemocratic as the US system. (I would note that these countries were all formed out of multiple countries)

France was formed out of multiple nations. It does not have an electoral college. I would suggest that if a country is going to have a powerful President, then the French method is almost perfect (although instant runoff would be preferable to the two-round system).

Spain was formed out of multiple countries. It does not have an electoral college, and the “President” is more of a Prime Minister. Spain still has a monarchy.

The United Kingdom - well, it’s in the name. A United Kingdom. Parliamentary democracy. No electoral college - you can be Prime Minister with only support from England. (You do not need me to tell you that many Commonwealth countries use a similar system)

The Netherlands was also formed out of multiple countries (Friesland, Holland, etc.) which is why it is called “Netherlands” not “Netherland”. Again, it is a parliamentary monarchy - but a more democratic one than the Uk thanks to its system of proportional representation.

Finland is not strictly speaking formed of multiple nations, although it does technically contain multiple nations (but in US terms the Sami would be more comparable to the Navajo than New York). It had an electoral college, but abolished it, and now elects Presidents via popular vote. Poland and Portugal also fall into this category

Switzerland is Switzerland. Now there’s a unique country.

America is the only country I could find which:

- is a long-standing liberal democracy
- has a powerful President
- and doesn’t elect that president through a popular vote

Among liberal democracies, much more common are: fully Parliamentary systems (usually monarchies), partially Parliamentary systems with a ceremonial president, and Presidential systems with presidents elected via popular vote.

I think if you’re going to have a powerful President, they should derive that power from the democratic consent of the governed, and not through representatives who vote on their behalf.

The American system is better than undemocratic systems... but it’s about as bad as a democratic system can be. Either make the president more representative or less powerful.

No that's your interpretation of what I'm doing. However that line of reasoning didn't enter my mind. Maybe you could ask me for clarification rather than make snap judgements.

Deep down I don't really care about either side. Perhaps that makes me a Nihilist. I really don't know. If you want to call me a liar and brand me a closet republican, be my guest.

This will probably be an unpopular opinion but I believe the Trump campaign has a right to investigate for the possibility of fraud. No, nothing has been concretely proven, but there are a lot of suspicious stats. For example ~138,000 votes appearing in Michigan at 4am, literally all for Biden. This was reportedly due to a machine glitch that was fixed but it still doesn’t make sense that every single vote would go in Biden’s favor. On Tuesday night, Trump was ahead in Pennsylvania by 7-800,000 with over 80% of the vote reported. Then, you wake up in the morning with Biden in the lead? The math is impossible unless 95-100% of mail in ballots were for Biden, even then it’s a stretch. Also, many states were called for Biden suspiciously early with other states refusing to call victory for Trump with 99%+ of the vote counted. Not to mention the % reporting staying at “99%” for days on end while Biden continued to accumulate votes.
Also, people are mostly voting Republican for senate and house but Biden for president? There has also been proof of dead people voting.
I’m not saying there is provable fraud but there is definitely valid reason for Trump to take it to court.

As POTUS Trump has the right to pardon criminals. But should he do it?

He is wasting taxpayers money when he should have just shut up and conceded.

I couldn't honestly say there's nothing there to investigate.

Sounds like Never Trumper conservatives and ex-Trump loyalist conservatives ballots. What exactly is suspicious about that again?

I believe the anomoly was that most people voting for Mr Trump also voted for House\Congress\other sections on the ballot, while there were a significant quantity of ballots for Mr Biden where the person filling in the ballot simply voted for him and did not vote on any other area on the ballot, which was very unusal based on historical records.

This could be caused by (among other possibilities) people wanting Mr Biden to win and not concerned whether the Republicans were to end up controlling the house\Senate, or people fraudulently filling in ballots to inflate the votes for Mr Biden and complete as many as possible in as short a time as possible.

Seems how under-informed and uninterested voters who only care about removing Trump would vote, no? Combine this with conservative leaning voters who can't support Trump but aren't suddenly Democrats and you have a situation like we see where anti-Trump enthusiasm doesn't entirely translate into pro-Democratic Party enthusiasm.

Normally, had this occurred across a wide area\the entire country, there would likely not be a potential problem\ no notice would have been taken, but in this case it was not widespread, instead concentrated in small areas, which is what causes it to stand out\appear to be questionable.

Taking the numbers and ignoring editorialising\other details from https://madworldnews.com/sidney-powell-450000-ballots/ (no idea what bias site may have, it was simply the first result in DDG when searching):
Michigan:
Trump votes - not listed
GOP senate votes - not listed
Difference - 7,131

Biden votes - not listed
Dem senate votes - not listed
Difference - 69,093

Georgia:
Trump votes - 2,432,799
GOP senate votes - 2,433,617
Difference - 818

Biden votes - 2,414,651
Dem senate votes - 2,318,850
Difference - 95,801

Wyoming:
Trump votes - 193,454
GOP senate votes - 197,961
Difference - 4507

Biden votes - 73,445
Dem senate votes - 72,720
Difference - 725

Were a "conservative" to not like Mr Trump, they would still be likely to vote for a conservative for Senate\House, rather than leave it to chance, regardless of who they were to vote for as president. Similarly, a "progressive" would be likely to vote for the Senate\House in order to try and ensure supporters\people aligned with Mr Trump also lost their elections.

Additionally, from a link within the above article:

Source: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/10/21/large-shares-of-voters-plan-to-vote-a-straight-party-ticket-for-president-senate-and-house/

Census.gov (for total population by state and year, and population of those under 18)
Lazy googling (currently incarcerated rate, and then I rounded down)
Lazy Wikipedia (total votes for each party by year, and I didn’t count third parties)

If I wanted to be exact I would have looked up only census.gov and something called the general social survey, which is public information. I would probably cross check the voter turnout by other data sources. I don’t know if any of this is in big international data, such as the WHO, but I’d check around.

70% turnout is actually too high as well. Under 50% is the only turnout I would find normal, not counting a historic election such as Obama’s first presidential election. I would expect numbers to be lower in a boring election, ones with a more popular third party candidate (Perot), and the second term of a sitting president. Some people will always sit out a vote because they don’t like their choices, are not interested, or think their candidate will win easily.

One cannot trust a news story for accurate information. It is their job to get us to tune in. You can get a general idea though, and then double check yourself.

Look, I may not be a political science expert, but I can tell you with some confidence what populations will do and the numbers we are seeing need to be verified. We may be opening the door to massive inaccuracies later on if we don’t check this now.