2020 General Election

[UNI88]

Do we ever really have a way or do we even truly audit elections? I'm saying this as a voter who's happy that Trump lost, so I'm not looking at it from that angle. What I'm saying is, do we even have the mechanisms and the ability to truly go vote for vote, matchup the vote with the person, the person with verifiable way to prove it was them, prove that they were eligible, prove that their vote was counted, and prove that their vote should've been counted? We act as if our election systems are streamlined and world class, but again, I live in PA, and it was just in 2016, so 4 years ago, that there was literally no way to do a recount based on the way we voted then (machines, punch the buttons to make lights turn on, and then pull the lever to record those votes - there was literally no way to prove if my votes were actually tabulated and certainly no way to look at it after the fact).

Trump's a buffoon and a narcissist of the highest order, but we shouldn't let that deter us from the fact that our electoral system is rife with the possibility for not only just malfeasance and purposeful meddling, but also just simple error. It's a shame that we can't have a real discussion about that.

Was the discussion I attempted to have immediately after the election, but it wasn’t to be. Both sides (as voters) should want to ensure the system is safe and secure and replicable. Both sides (as politicians) seem to do everything in their power to oppose the idea.

I support Ganny's idea 693%!

Donks would have supported it against Conk opposition in 2016 and Conks support it against Donk opposition in 2020.

[Skjellyfetti]

matchup the vote with the person

that would violate almost every state election law.

you have to decide whether anonymity or transparency is more important

we could have 'open elections' where the votes are public record for maximum transparency. i think nigeria is the only country going that route.

[SeattleGriz]

matchup the vote with the person

that would violate almost every state election law.

you have to decide whether anonymity or transparency is more important

we could have 'open elections' where the votes are public record for maximum transparency. i think nigeria is the only country going that route.

Open it up to the individual voter then. Washington has a site you can go to see if your vote was counted, but not who it tallied your vote for. I want to see my digital copy.

Have you seen the adjudication process? Was shown multiple times that ballots in which the scan couldn't determine who was voted for, went to adjudication, with no record of the change. The vote can be switched during adjudication and there is no record of it happening.

The point was brought up how a Georgia election official said that of the 110k votes they had processed, 105k had gone through adjudication. That's A LOT of power to wield. Of course I didn't get to see the whole context of that statement so it could be selective editing.

Bottom line, I want access to my digital copy to ensure who I voted for received that vote.

[JohnStOnge]

The point was brought up how a Georgia election official said that of the 110k votes they had processed, 105k had gone through adjudication.

My guess is that that's false. I think there is no way that 105K of 110K mail in ballots received by any jurisdiction had to go through that process. But go ahead and provide a link so I can check on it.

[JohnStOnge]

I have been seeing stuff about how very lopsided vote totals reported at given times for Biden show that there was voter fraud. They don't. You can very easily see that it's very possible for vote totals form major metropolitan areas can go VERY overwhelmingly for the Democrat by just doing things like going to historical info on the District of Columbia. For example: In 2016, Hillary Clinton got 282,830 votes to Donald Trump's 12,723. In 2012, Obama got 267,070 to Romney's 21,381. In 2008, Obama got 245,800 to McCain's 17,367.

The mere fact that a "vote dump" shows VERY overwhelming majority for the Democrat is NOT evidence of something nefarious going on. Democrats are more likely to benefit from that because Democrats tend to win by overwhelming majorities in a lot of large metropolitan areas. And this year we had the added factor of mail in voting discrepancy. When a big batch of mail in votes was counted for a large metropolitan area that went Democrat in any case, there was the added factor of Democrats voting by mail in a far greater proportion than Republicans did.

[Skjellyfetti]

The point was brought up how a Georgia election official said that of the 110k votes they had processed, 105k had gone through adjudication.

My guess is that that's false. I think there is no way that 105K of 110K mail in ballots received by any jurisdiction had to go through that process. But go ahead and provide a link so I can check on it.

Lol. That was my reaction as well.

"The point was brought up how a Georgia election official said..."

[JohnStOnge]

My guess is that that's false. I think there is no way that 105K of 110K mail in ballots received by any jurisdiction had to go through that process. But go ahead and provide a link so I can check on it.

Lol. That was my reaction as well.

"The point was brought up how a Georgia election official said..."

It's like I said in a previous post. A lot of what's been thrown around out there is just false. Stuff like turnout rates being improbably high then when you run it down you find out they weren't really as high as the people making the claim said they were. Or a bunch of dead people voted and, no, that's not true. Sure, if you have vote by mail some people are going to die after they mail their votes but, no, there wasn't some unusual rate of that happening and there wasn't a "dead people voting" problem. But so much of it is being thrown around that it's hard to keep up with it. You have to just hope that most SANE people recognize that the election was vetted by numerous agencies as well as numerous court cases and all that activity resulted in zilch in terms of indications of voter fraud or irregularities sufficient to change the outcome.

[SeattleGriz]

The point was brought up how a Georgia election official said that of the 110k votes they had processed, 105k had gone through adjudication.

My guess is that that's false. I think there is no way that 105K of 110K mail in ballots received by any jurisdiction had to go through that process. But go ahead and provide a link so I can check on it.

Like I said. Very short clip, but if true, very problematic.

[SeattleGriz]

My guess is that that's false. I think there is no way that 105K of 110K mail in ballots received by any jurisdiction had to go through that process. But go ahead and provide a link so I can check on it.

Lol. That was my reaction as well.

"The point was brought up how a Georgia election official said..."

See my reply to StOnge above. So far, we've scanned 113K and adjudicated 106K. That's messed up.

But even I don't trust anything this day and age. You're welcome to rebut this with facts, which I wouldn't be surprised to exist.

[SeattleGriz]

Longer, more clear video. Haven't listened much past the first minute. Thought this video could be of a specific group of ballots that have to be adjudicated anyway and he's simply giving status.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ic-_K9S ... e=emb_logo

[SDHornet]

that would violate almost every state election law.

you have to decide whether anonymity or transparency is more important

we could have 'open elections' where the votes are public record for maximum transparency. i think nigeria is the only country going that route.

Open it up to the individual voter then. Washington has a site you can go to see if your vote was counted, but not who it tallied your vote for. I want to see my digital copy.

Have you seen the adjudication process? Was shown multiple times that ballots in which the scan couldn't determine who was voted for, went to adjudication, with no record of the change. The vote can be switched during adjudication and there is no record of it happening.

The point was brought up how a Georgia election official said that of the 110k votes they had processed, 105k had gone through adjudication. That's A LOT of power to wield. Of course I didn't get to see the whole context of that statement so it could be selective editing.

Bottom line, I want access to my digital copy to ensure who I voted for received that vote.

Same here in CA. You can check to see if your ballot was counted, but it doesn't say who you voted for.

There is zero excuse for the electoral system of not having a way to weed out illegal votes especially given the technology of today.

[GannonFan]

matchup the vote with the person

that would violate almost every state election law.

you have to decide whether anonymity or transparency is more important

we could have 'open elections' where the votes are public record for maximum transparency. i think nigeria is the only country going that route.

I don't pretend that it's easy or that a simple solution exists, but I also don't want to pretend that our electoral system is in good shape either. We could have massive fraud (intentional) or massive error (unintentional) and we don't seem to have any way to either detect or correct that it is happening. We can't even go back after the fact to check because we just don't have the records and that level of detail. We're not terribly far away from my example in PA, again, just 4 years ago, where I would turn on a bunch of lights, hit a button that said "cast your vote", and that would be it. No idea of who I voted for, no way to check that my votes were tabulated at all let alone correctly. We reverted to a paper system this year and the forms were scanned in, so that's better, but still doesn't answer the question about voter rolls and verification of who the voter was. We can (or at least should) do better.

[kalm]

that would violate almost every state election law.

you have to decide whether anonymity or transparency is more important

we could have 'open elections' where the votes are public record for maximum transparency. i think nigeria is the only country going that route.

I don't pretend that it's easy or that a simple solution exists, but I also don't want to pretend that our electoral system is in good shape either. We could have massive fraud (intentional) or massive error (unintentional) and we don't seem to have any way to either detect or correct that it is happening. We can't even go back after the fact to check because we just don't have the records and that level of detail. We're not terribly far away from my example in PA, again, just 4 years ago, where I would turn on a bunch of lights, hit a button that said "cast your vote", and that would be it. No idea of who I voted for, no way to check that my votes were tabulated at all let alone correctly. We reverted to a paper system this year and the forms were scanned in, so that's better, but still doesn't answer the question about voter rolls and verification of who the voter was. We can (or at least should) do better.

It’s conceivable that massive fraud could be achieved and hard to detect just due to the shear size and variances of the system. I’m also guessing data analysts could debunk many of the concerns.

[GannonFan]

I don't pretend that it's easy or that a simple solution exists, but I also don't want to pretend that our electoral system is in good shape either. We could have massive fraud (intentional) or massive error (unintentional) and we don't seem to have any way to either detect or correct that it is happening. We can't even go back after the fact to check because we just don't have the records and that level of detail. We're not terribly far away from my example in PA, again, just 4 years ago, where I would turn on a bunch of lights, hit a button that said "cast your vote", and that would be it. No idea of who I voted for, no way to check that my votes were tabulated at all let alone correctly. We reverted to a paper system this year and the forms were scanned in, so that's better, but still doesn't answer the question about voter rolls and verification of who the voter was. We can (or at least should) do better.

It’s conceivable that massive fraud could be achieved and hard to detect just due to the shear size and variances of the system. I’m also guessing data analysts could debunk many of the concerns.

What data is there to analyze? I agree, the size and the complexity of our numerous voting systems (forget just 50 different ways it's done, often in states there are differences not only by county but even by township or municipality - it's probably 50x50 different systems) makes this a difficult task. Doesn't mean it's not important enough to tackle though. Kind of like when JFK was saying we decided to go to the moon precisely because it was hard.

[kalm]

It’s conceivable that massive fraud could be achieved and hard to detect just due to the shear size and variances of the system. I’m also guessing data analysts could debunk many of the concerns.

What data is there to analyze? I agree, the size and the complexity of our numerous voting systems (forget just 50 different ways it's done, often in states there are differences not only by county but even by township or municipality - it's probably 50x50 different systems) makes this a difficult task. Doesn't mean it's not important enough to tackle though. Kind of like when JFK was saying we decided to go to the moon precisely because it was hard.

There are three types of people in this world. Those who are good with numbers and those who aren’t. I’m clearly in the third category.

All I know is that large scale data shows some “signals” and “noise” that the analysts get all geeky about.

[GannonFan]

What data is there to analyze? I agree, the size and the complexity of our numerous voting systems (forget just 50 different ways it's done, often in states there are differences not only by county but even by township or municipality - it's probably 50x50 different systems) makes this a difficult task. Doesn't mean it's not important enough to tackle though. Kind of like when JFK was saying we decided to go to the moon precisely because it was hard.

There are three types of people in this world. Those who are good with numbers and those who aren’t. I’m clearly in the third category.

All I know is that large scale data shows some “signals” and “noise” that the analysts get all geeky about.

Hey, I'm no elections expert (I'm just a lowly ChemE), but I do know that it's hard to analyze data if you don't actually have the relevant data to analyze. No matter how geeky you are. As we've seen with just the COVID crisis, our ability to gather data and report on it is woefully inadequate, and with COVID that is related to a literal matter of life and death on a daily basis. We're far less capable on more mundane matters that only really come up once every 4 years.

[∞∞∞]

Conspiracies have obviously happened before, but the larger the conspiracy the more likely it is to be discovered. There's a name for this which I can't remember, but it doesn't take that many people involved for the conspiracy be discovered.

Considering the massive amount of safeguards we have in our election systems, and how they're all run locally, there's almost zero chance of widespread voter fraud going on. In fact, I'd be more open to believing it's easier to happen in smaller rural counties than large urban ones.

[SDHornet]

Conspiracies have obviously happened before, but the larger the conspiracy the more likely it is to be discovered. There's a name for this which I can't remember, but it doesn't take that many people involved for the conspiracy be discovered.

Considering the massive amount of safeguards we have in our election systems, and how they're all run locally, there's almost zero chance of widespread voter fraud going on. In fact, I'd be more open to believing it's easier to happen in smaller rural counties than large urban ones.

There wasn't widespread voter fraud. It was targeted to a handful of metro areas in the swing states. Not hard to pull off when you mail everyone on the voter rolls a ballot (i.e. ballot harvesting which is illegal in most places). And why would it be easier to pull off in a place with fewer ballots? More ballots/larger voter rolls to run with.

[SDHornet]

Time running cover for all the shadiness that went on. Looks like "fortified" is the new narrative.

That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it. And they believe the public needs to understand the system’s fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America endures.

https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

[89Hen]

Biden won the EC by 0.048% of the votes cast nationwide. That's not very big.

That said, I think there probably was some fraud, but we'll never know how much.

[UNI88]

Ganny's absolutely killing it on this thread. Nice work!

[SeattleGriz]

Ganny's absolutely killing it on this thread. Nice work!

He doesn't let us drag him down to our level where we can beat him with experience!

[Skjellyfetti]

Biden won the EC by 0.048% of the votes cast nationwide. That's not very big.

That said, I think there probably was some fraud, but we'll never know how much.

And Trump won the EC by 0.057% in 2016 of the votes cast nationwide. That's not very big either.

I don't think many elections would produce a "big" spread.

Electoral College is great, right?

[AZGrizFan]

Biden won the EC by 0.048% of the votes cast nationwide. That's not very big.

That said, I think there probably was some fraud, but we'll never know how much.

And Trump won the EC by 0.057% in 2016 of the votes cast nationwide. That's not very big either.

I don't think many elections would produce a "big" spread.

Electoral College is great, right?

Yes, it is. Glad to see you coming around.

[BDKJMU]

that would violate almost every state election law.

you have to decide whether anonymity or transparency is more important

we could have 'open elections' where the votes are public record for maximum transparency. i think nigeria is the only country going that route.

I don't pretend that it's easy or that a simple solution exists, but I also don't want to pretend that our electoral system is in good shape either. We could have massive fraud (intentional) or massive error (unintentional) and we don't seem to have any way to either detect or correct that it is happening. We can't even go back after the fact to check because we just don't have the records and that level of detail. We're not terribly far away from my example in PA, again, just 4 years ago, where I would turn on a bunch of lights, hit a button that said "cast your vote", and that would be it. No idea of who I voted for, no way to check that my votes were tabulated at all let alone correctly. We reverted to a paper system this year and the forms were scanned in, so that's better, but still doesn't answer the question about voter rolls and verification of who the voter was. We can (or at least should) do better.

-Maintain accurate voter rolls by having them constantly updated 24/7/365.
-Like most 1st world countries, no mail in ballots except for those overseas and a few other limited exceptions
-Like most 1st world countries, require ID for everyone.
-Full audits afterward.