A logical and empirical look at Election Fraud in 2020

First off a few things about me and where I stand:
I voted for Trump three out of four times he was on the ballot.
I don't believe he is lying about election fraud - I think he really believes it.
I do believe there was election fraud committed.
I do not think Biden won because of fraud.

Why do I believe these things? I have never seen any evidence that wasn't a completely isolated incident or circumstantial. I listen and read a lot of conservative op-eds, and they don't believe it either. If there was hard evidence, we would have it by now. Logically, for Trump to be right, everyone one in DC is in on it. Even Ted Cruz has presented no evidence.

I want this to be an open discussion where all things are on the table concerning voter fraud. This is a place to post logical reasoning to support your position and evidence if there is any. Hopefully we can examine that without resorting to keyboard ninjutsu and doing the whole us vs them thing again. Seriously we are all in this S*&^ show together after all, and I for one value everyone on here's opinion, it is why I keep coming back.

So let's here it. Why do you believe what you believe?

 

When you say “election fraud” what do you mean?

 

There always have been and always will be irregularities in elections. That will never end. But irregularities does not equal widespread voter fraud.

 

Any kind of stolen ballots, changed ballots, lost ballots, fake ballots, thrown out ballots, double counted ballots, etc.

Dead people voting, out of state people voting, voter suppression, illegal aliens voting, foreign interference.

Everything I guess, but mainly the rhetoric that has become popular the last few election cycles.

 

I agree, and I am not convinced it would even be possible.

 

Then how do you communicate the difference between some random guy voting twice by accident and a widespread effort to overthrow democracy?

 

So..........perhaps it's time to recognize by that definition both Dems and Repubs are effected by what you call fraud.

"In April 2020, a voter fraud study covering 20 years by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found the level of fraud "exceedingly rare" since it occurs only in "0.00006 percent" of instances nationally, and, in one state, "0.000004 percent — about five times less likely than getting hit by lightning in the US."

 

I would also like to point out a logical assumption. If voter fraud is happening I would not assume that all fraud was perpetuated by just supporters of one candidate.

 

The trump team filed pleadings alleging massive election rigging.

Have motions for Rule 11 sanctions been filed against Giuliani, Powell and the rest of the Trump legal team?

 

No, it wouldn't be possible. There will always be a small minority of people who will go to any length to commit fraud in an election. Second, when counting large number of votes, it is impossible to count with absolute precision (i.e. 0 votes miscounted). If they count millions of votes 10 times, the exact final number will be slightly different each time.

The question is: Does all this matter? That's what audits are for, and if the audits find fraud, irregularities, poll worker mistakes and miscounting to be insignificant with respect to the outcome of the election, that's good enough for me.

Now, Florida in 2000 was a different story. The whole outcome hinged on 500 votes in one state, and how ballots would be counted (hanging chads, etc). It was within the margin of error. The 2020 election was nothing like this. In all battleground states Biden won significantly above the margin of error. If anything, the 2016 election was much closer, even though Trump declared a landslide.

 

Of course we should discount accidents, as fraud would require intent.

Widespread is kind of what we are looking for, because that would require coordination and conspiracy. I would think that would be the only way to sway the results in any organized way.

But, we can't necessarily discard one off instances of fraud either, because enough of those can also have a large impact.

 

Yes. That is the kind of statistic that would need to be absurdly wrong to justify "stolen election"

IMO they would have accidentally found more fraud by now...

 

You could have waited a few pages before making so much sense

But seriously, I am right there also. Even if "xyz" happened, he still lost. "biggest loss ever they tell me"

 

There is a false perception something other than insignificant fraud is occurring. It isn't based on evidence. So how do we change the perception?
Or better put, how do we stop lies about election fraud from being spread?

 

Trump and his allies are 1 - 64 in lawsuits filed, the lone win concerned reducing the "curing" time for some mail-in ballots in PA from 9 days to 6 days. That's it, the only win out of 65 lawsuits launched.

Rule 11 doesn't apply here because "the elite strike force" of Uncle Rudy, the Kraken, the traffic court lawyer and all the other minions knew if they presented in court what they mouthed off about outside of court they would be in some serious jeopardy. Presenting false evidence and non facts in a courtroom would be reason for Rule 11 - which is why, to my knowledge, even these clowns didn't risk it. In other words, these clowns didn't produce or present one iota of factual evidence of widespread fraud inside a courtroom and yet, their supporters, followers etc, assumed they had. And, as we've seen, Dominion is taking action against Rudy & the Kraken for their outrageous lies in the public square. I really like Dominion's chances.....

 

Please distinguish what evidence we are talking about that you feel has merit. Without an example of "massive election rigging" to point to, what are we really talking about here?

The fact none of it was even considered speaks volumes to me. I always felt the real tactic was to through out the results and run rough shot over the EC.

 

That's not really getting at the core issue. How do you distinguish between someone who just votes twice and something organized? Electoral fraud is too big of a term, you need to be more specific.

 

I don't know if we can, or more importantly that we should. Who decides what the truth is? Everyone has bias, and everyone lies.

 

Surely you have been keeping up with the accusations of fraud concerning our election? This time it was stolen, last time it was collusion.

The topic is no more or less your thoughts on that, and why do you believe that.

 

Uh, you say, ""I do believe there was election fraud committed.""

Then say, "" If there was hard evidence, we would have it by now"""


So why do you believe it with no evidence?

I've been meaning to ask a righty that question but since I never got an answer to, "WHERE is the evidence ?" I didn't bother

 

I have no specific reason. Logical assumption maybe? 150 million people, bound to been some cheaters.

Do you really believe every single vote is true and accurate?

I have seen people on this very board claim to have first hand knowledge of people forging mail in ballots that were sent to the previous address holder. It isn't really that hard to believe.

 

People SAY a lot of things on anonymous message boards.

 

They do. But do you find it hard to believe someone would falsify a mail in ballot?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
Uh, you say, ""I do believe there was election fraud committed.""

Then say, "" If there was hard evidence, we would have it by now"""


So why do you believe it with no evidence?

I've been meaning to ask a righty that question but since I never got an answer to, "WHERE is the evidence ?" I didn't bother

You posted: " If there was hard evidence, we would have it by now"""

And I agree. WHERE TF is it?



Not having" a specific reason" , "claim to have first hand knowledge" , "bound to be"...that's NOT HARD EVIDENCE.



And as you have been shown there is always some cheating but it's so minimal it doesn't make any difference.

 

No. But I do find it hard to believe there were enough people to do that to sway an election.