Wait so the author was only able to debunk the first claim but actually corroborated the second. Can anyone offer an explanation to the ballots being returned before even being mailed?
Whether this is responsible for the discrepancy, I have no idea. Of course, it's also possible that the mail date is wrong, or that we're misunderstanding what it means. Someone else floated possibility of issues with military ballots. My hope is that somebody calls and asks, because it could be a simple explanation. I don't see any reason to assume the worst. Props to the blog author for great work.
This happened to my mom in CA. Two ballots sent a few days apart. If she had returned the first one already in the mail before receiving 2nd, then this discrepancy would have shown up in this way.
Military and provisional ballots don't need to be mailed (I received mine by email). Perhaps the system requires a "date mailed" entry and they just arbitrarily enter the current date when they process them, to satisfy the system? Pure speculation on my part though.
Don't some states do in-person absentee, and those get reported effectively the same as mail in, but with all dates/times the same? Could that be the case here?
I want to complement you on taking a current topic and using it to plug Dolt. I hadn't heard of it before, but I will definitely take a better look at it tomorrow.
Probably flagged before the amendment of the article which, while debunking one claim of possible fraud, actually confirms another (possible) case, which gives it the "political balance" that might have stilled the flaggers had this been reflected in the title: "Investigating election fraud claims using open data and Dolt".
Regardless, the article details an interesting use case for Dolt (the first I ever heard of it, but looks on the surface like a great idea).
The first one where there were too many elderly votes. I hadn't heard that one, seems like a low effort issue that is easy to debunk.
The first problem in Pennsylvania was that they kept all republican observers a football field length away from anything. On November 5th the Penn Judge ruled that the republicans can get closer and actually observe vote counts. The stupid republican vote observers didn't bring their binoculars and therefore didn't observe anything. Worse yet, Penn Democrats violated this judge's order to give access to the observers. When they started recording showing the fraud they got thrown out.
The second problem is what the article confirms. As Trump said, 'Voting needs to stop.' but that's the problem with mail-in ballots being accepted up to 3 days after the election.
The third problem is Benford's law. The actual math shows a confirmed amount of fraud occurred.
The 4th problem in Penn is that there's video showing workers filling out ballots.
That's just Penn. Michigan threw out all republican observers because of mask violations and 'racism' and such. Immediately after they did that... 138,000 votes showed up, 100% for biden. https://twitter.com/ericjgibbs/status/1324088038830624768 How can anyone watch this video and not question the veracity of Michigan's vote.
Then there's Wisconsin where republican observers were put in a separate room with a video cam feed. As per the covid rules. That's basically useless and again benford's law was violated for over 65,000 votes. Somehow 100% for biden.
Trump won Ohio by quite a margin and realistically should have won Wisconsin and Michigan by about the same amount.
Let's just assume for a second there was absolutely no election fraud. The perception is everything. The political divide in the USA over the last 10 years has largely speaking been Democrats. Now it's going to be both.
Quick Google searches debunk most of your claims. A couple of them have been covered extensively. The fact that you still believe them days later highlights your bias, or the bias of your news feeds.
>Quick Google searches debunk most of your claims. A couple of them have been covered extensively. The fact that you still believe them days later highlights your bias, or the bias of your news feeds.
Benford's law is debunked? Could you provide a link disproving the law please?
Voting employees voting debunked? Not at all. It's a real video. People are arguing that they were 'fixing' damaged ballots. Which is allowed by the rules. Except let's rotate back to the observers being placed a football field length away. This is not transparent. Obviously this is not 'debunked' but AT BEST the argument is that it's a completely non-transparent process that places huge doubt on the process.
I even provide the video showing the republicans having been thrown out of the vote counting building in Michigan. The windows were being covered up. You're right, I have not provided any evidence at all showing fraud. Except that's because they were thrown out. Blocking windows and blocking people from video recording the vote from outside is quite shifty. However, there's clearly nothing debunked here. I provided the video that cant be debunked.
Wisconsin hasn't been debunked. Wisconsin has an open observer policy meaning anyone can show up. Any amount of people could show up. They setup covid rules such that they basically couldn't observe by placing them in a room and a livestream. I have provided no evidence of fraud, but that's because the observers were blocked from doing their job.
So again you said most of my claims are debunked but they are inheritantly not debunkable. They aren't even debatable, but they also don't necessarily prove fraud occurred. You assert that it highlights my bias. Here's the even more interesting thing, I'm not American. I'm not in the USA. I have no need for bias. I'm an objective viewer here.
You have projected your own feeling of bias. It sounds like your news has 'debunked' these claims but it absolutely has not. You should take another look at your own echo chamber. Denying reality isn't going to make the issue go away. The perception that the election was stolen is quite clear. It wasn't Russian agents in Michigan cardboarding the windows.
In fact you should see that Michigan video restricting poll watchers from entering that building as election fraud by itself. Poll watchers dont need any nomination from a party. Everyone can be a poll watcher and legally are allowed to go in that building. It was entirely illegal for them to close those doors.
I know zero about Benford's law, there is at least one argument that the available data is not sufficient or does not lead one to believe voter fraud occurred:
I will be watching for more information on this subject.
Poll watchers weren't let in to the Michigan facility because Republicans (and Democrats) had already exceeded the maximum number of allowed poll watchers.
Biden didn't receive 138k votes to Trump's zero. That was a typo which was immediately corrected.
Poll workers do transcribe votes from damaged ballots. One poll worker reads votes from the damaged ballots, another fills in the new ballot. Of this team of two, one is a Democrat, one is a Republican. The videos of this process that some people shared crops out poll watchers.
I agree that if poll watchers were not allowed to adequately perform their functions in any state that is not acceptable. It is not evidence of fraud.
>I know zero about Benford's law, there is at least one argument that the available data is not sufficient or does not lead one to believe voter fraud occurred:
Well you made the argument that I have been widely debunked.
Very interesting to have a paper written up already. I don't actually see the rebuttals other than 'everyone knows that's not useful'. Also interesting how he has discovered problems when republicans won. I'm not seeing the content to tackle myself.
>Poll watchers weren't let in to the Michigan facility because Republicans (and Democrats) had already exceeded the maximum number of allowed poll watchers.
Not how the rules are set. Michigan threw out all republican challengers(yes wearing a white halloween mask is probably inappropriate, but did every single one of the other republican poll watchers have mask violations or say racist terms. Not likely.) and then locked out all watchers. There are no limits as per the rules. Now let's say it was just limits, why block up the windows? Let the people record through the windows?
The problem is the perception.
>Biden didn't receive 138k votes to Trump's zero. That was a typo which was immediately corrected.
While I understand Vox or NYTimes outright assert that this never happened; yet NYtimes had graphs which showed the bump that was not removed. NYTtimes took down the graphs. The bump did happen, they are walking it back as 'typo'
How about the other 'software glitches' that benefitted Biden. Counties which have voted heavily Republican throughout history supposedly voted heavily biden. I guess it's certainly possible there was that much swing.
But now circle back. Poll watchers, of which there are no limits on numbers or qualifications, were not allowed in that building.
The problem is the perception. An awful lot of reasons to distrust the results.
>Poll workers do transcribe votes from damaged ballots. One poll worker reads votes from the damaged ballots, another fills in the new ballot. Of this team of two, one is a Democrat, one is a Republican. The videos of this process that some people shared crops out poll watchers.
That's not at all what happened is the point being made and there were no observers. You have a pretty precarious situation here.
>I agree that if poll watchers were not allowed to adequately perform their functions in any state that is not acceptable. It is not evidence of fraud.
That's the new thing by the news. "Trump has provided no evidence" how exactly can you provide evidence when the observers were removed from the process? The observers are the people who provide the evidence. That's why both sides agree there should be practically no limits on observers.
That's the fraud. Interesting also how we went from my points being mostly debunked to basically be all correct.
>The county officials where the 138k typo happened reported it as such.
Right, kind of rehashing the issue. They now claim that it was a typo. Any and all "typos" like this is not up to the officials to "report" in this case it would be the Michigan Republican party who is required to claim and acknowledge the typo. Transparency is very important.
>Who says poll watchers weren't present where the mail transcribing videos were recorded?
I do believe the answer is the Republicans?
>Where is there no limit on the number of poll watchers allowed inside counting facilities?
At the end of the day we are kind of rehashing the same points. Trump is a child who incites and inflames people. He very much energized the
Democrats and made the situation a huge amount of frustration and desperation. Was there fraud? Let's be realistic, there was. Will it be discovered? Almost certainly not. Will Biden be president? You betcha.
The problem is that the political divide over the last 10 years has been widening and it isn't the republicans. The lack of transparency and huge number of inconsistencies that appear to be an unfair election is going to result in the republicans moving. The divide is increasing because of the perception.
Two individual examples is a far cry from all Republican watchers being thrown out.
In the video you linked no one is thrown out, they are kept out.
Of course fraud happens, but plenty of studies show that it so rare that races need to be very tight for it to affect the outcome.
I agree that transparency is an issue, but ballot counting are state and county or township run operations. You can expect a lot of inconsistencies and mistakes. I'm sure you've heard Hanlon's razor.
Political divide is the problem, which is why I have issue with your post. You're repeating a lot of the baseless claims that are furthering the divide.
I am only disheartened that this will be ignored by so many people who only look at data that confirms their biases. American discourse had been severely damaged over the past 20 years.
While the effort is noble, facts unfortunately will not matter. There is a coup underway, no matter how impolite it is to say so. Doubt is being sowed in the presidential election results, more so every day. The ruling party realized some time ago that belief frequently trumps facts, and this present situation is little different.
As long as they can get people to believe the election is fraudulent, then they can maintain power. This is what they are presently doing. (And are likely to succeed, I fear.)
It won't succeed in changing the outcome of the election—but I doubt that's the plan. Instead, it's to create a widespread feeling that the election was stolen, and use that resentment to support obstructionism and as fuel for the next election.
I’m not worried. Those who are responsible for elections will certify the election results, and the government can evict those trespassing. The machinery isn’t fooled. It’s still important to refute mistruths presented without data.
What makes me nervous is the pre-stacked supreme court. This has been a months-long strategy beginning with neutering and disabling of the USPS, attacking the validity of mail-in ballots, and rushing a friendly candidate to the highest court.
The Supreme Court is not a political rubber stamp for their party, as Gorsuch and even Kavanaugh have shown. They've never been that, and the idea that they'd become that for Donald Trump seems pretty implausible. They rule on questions of law, and they rule based on their legal philosophies. Yes, you see the reasoning look a bit motivated sometimes (looking at you, Alito and Breyer), but the idea that these are people who will throw away their credibility and careers to abet a coup? Naaaah.
They'd have a hard enough time going after gay marriage -- I'd bet Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would vote to uphold Obergefell today if they heard it, and we already know Roberts' vote.
