Mexico is less corrupt---
US Instances of Voter Fraud (Megathread?) - Probably a good idea to have a thread on this given how often it's discussed and will continue to be discussed even after November.
- Thread starter muh_moobs
- Start date
Trianon
kiwifarms.net
I don't think anyone's mystified by mail-in ballots but by the idea that they can be put in place under emergency order with no input from the legislature, which is what happened in several states. If voters now want to roll back widescale mail-ins, they are not clamping down on legal voting procedures, because the process already preemptively tried to take it out of their hands, where it constitutionally belongs.
Voters and legislatures obviously don't have carte blanche to make unfair voter laws, and they still have to abide by fair districting and defensible rules, but basic ID verification and processes that don't change on a dime because of a pandemic are more than justifiable.
Voters and legislatures obviously don't have carte blanche to make unfair voter laws, and they still have to abide by fair districting and defensible rules, but basic ID verification and processes that don't change on a dime because of a pandemic are more than justifiable.
The biggest concern is the leak of data or altering of physical ballots. The AZ audit had both as major issues, as they didn't lock down their own network (which was hilarious) and the methods they were using included processes that could potentially damage physical ballots, or alter the markings to the point where the ballot is invalidated - stuff like having pens with the wrong colors of ink delivered. The AZ audit has been an absolute fucking joke including looking for bamboo fibers in ballots, because obviously china somehow air mailed a bunch of them. It's just retarded.
big ups liquid richard
kiwifarms.net
Must have been during the secret night hours when they opened back up the polls and every republican was asleep in bed so nobody caught them, and there's no proof. Dangit!
Menotaur
kiwifarms.net
I think in reality a lot of the procedures surrounding the elections need reform. I agree in principle that some of the procedures adopted to give people the chance to vote could be interpreted as a violation of some of the rules in some states - however, this is procedural and not fraud. So I think some of the cases on procedural grounds had technical merit but lacked standing. I concede that if I were on the courts, I would have allowed a few of the cases to proceed on technical merits, but would have thoroughly expected them to be voided on the standing.
It is unjust to say an election was stolen because accommodations were made so people could vote - this premise is utterly ridiculous and flies in the face of the constitution and any founding father would agree - you have to allow people to vote, and cut off times and the like were meant for allowance of procedure - not as a penalty for late choices or inability to vote earlier.
If we shut down every voter booth in a region and then issued orders to extend voting by several hours so people could go to other booths to vote you could argue the technical limitations of the election laws - but you run up against the problem these cases hit when they went to court - the standing and basis of these laws is to ALLOW voting, not prevent it; thus circumstances will always govern a court outcome. All murders are homicide, but not all homicide is murder, and even then there are degrees. Circumstances govern courts, not black and white technicalities.
I think the real problem with signature verification is null - a mere fraction of votes were subject to interpretation - a fraction so small you'd have to be insane to say it effected the election. The real problem with arguing signatures is you can argue all signatures so you really have to have more than that. As an example to have 200,000 false signatures in PA would require 200,000 people to cast a ballot that then got held up being accepted because they had already counted one for that person that came in from in-person voting or mail.
In other words, you would have 200,000 double cast votes - but this did not happen. Or you'd have to believe that the Democrats had 200,000 ballots cast for people who were Republican and it was a fluke that none of the 200,000 came in and voted or sent in a ballot of their own. The odds on this are greater than there are atoms in the Universe.
Or you'd have to accept an even more preposterous ideas that 200,000 names were created and false ballots were created for them and both the GOP and Democrat rep had no idea they were viewing a false ballot for a false entry in the election roll call list. Even more absurd.
HOWEVER, the way the systems are designed is that a signature is matched, confirmed and then the ballot is considered accepted - so there is no possible way to audit this later if you doubt the original ballot was authentic. This represents only a problem if we agree that representatives from both parties both agreed to accept an illegal ballot, and that clearly did not happen.
Technically it makes it impossible to audit any election after the fact because we do not know whos ballot is whos - but for this to become even needed one has to accept that both parties agreed to allow illegal ballots. Both parties. And it would have involved thousands of people on both sides in numerous districts across the entire country. Even then, it just breaks down once you try and commit the fraud.
Alas, while I would agree that a federal government could ask that all ballots be matched to a person for audit purposes, this will now never happen. With the way Trump called these ballots false, the way he labeled people as traitors and then the way Arizona handed over ballots for "an audit" (cough cough, laugh laugh) to fucking civilians, all they did was ensure that no administration or court anywhere would ever allow details and signatures to be matched to a cast ballot in the future - because they just proved why the voter system can not allow ballots to be assigned verified details - abuse by a government - the Arizona government and Trump administration essentially threw out privacy policies by allowing this to happen if they had details.
If those ballots had had names in Arizona, do any of us doubt at any level that the GOP would have hounded their own who voted against them? Or shamed those that voted for or against a candidate? There is no doubt at all what would have happened. None. Those who set up the election procedures knew this.
If the Federal government wants to establish a unique ID for a citizen to vote and then have a federal audit procedure once could say this would be full-proof - except the same exact baseless claims made by an administration as to "voter fraud" could be made so it makes no difference. Let us say such a branch of government existed, what happens when the President has a friend in charge of it and simply orders them to leak the information or hand it over to the Office of the President? What happens if the President then says the "audit branch is lying". The same problem.
How would you feel if you voted for the other guy and your friend down the road calls you up and says "Im verifying who you voted for.", that's not OK.
Again, if the courts had been given even a shred of evidence of fraud I would have found it fascinating and would have loved to have researched it myself - but they gave absolutely none and instead said on TV they were presenting evidence in court, and when they got there, they cried instead niggers got a chance to vote and some asshole should have shut the poling stations down at dawn on these people and every mail vote should only be counted if the GOP won in the state, and if they didn't then they should be thrown out.
I'd always thought I would like for elections to be capable of being audited - and through the court filings I discovered that they actually are. When I thought previously they were easily falsified.
I'd summarize it again - to your point - there were technical arguments for procedures which had technical merits and I understand Kavanaghs argument to hear them - but this should not be confused with simply wanting to hear it versus that the standing would be thrown out in leu of a technical fault. It would not have been.
Technically there was an argument of one state where on a technical basis, it was probably true that the mail in votes violated State laws - but again, you've run into the problem that the election laws are there to ensure people can vote and that fraud does not happen - they are not there to limit voting, so again on a standing, it failed.
Once one understands how a ballot even gets from a voter to a counting table - and I mean really understands it - then it becomes quite clear that there was no widespread fraud in the election for a vast multitude of reasons, and having the ability to signature verify and post-election audit capability of a signature and details (as one is pointless without the other), then one grasps quickly that the reason why the audits performed came back showing the election was correct are sound. Several times I might add.
I agree with this as well. I'd like to add that we need a US Based and manufactured, standardized, ballot system that are free from archaic snags like hung votes, etc.
Menotaur
kiwifarms.net
I agree with you. It would make sense to pass some federal laws but they are doomed to pass in the Senate. I think the Federal government should have full authority on election laws and dictate a sound series of policies from allowing mail in - to audit procedures of signatures to number of polling places per population head count etc. etc. After all, we are talking about the position of President so it is Federal.
In reality there is a desire to limit voting in GOP held states, and on the same token, there is a rightful desire to ensure we do not go with a system of anyone with 50.1% vote gets to rule. Otherwise Democrats get the say-so on everything. While Red States get too much power in the Senate and clearly overly use this card and abuse it, with how many people they represent, there is an argument for and against this and both arguments are actually right.
Which brings us to the logical conclusion there is no perfect system; just the best out of all the bad ones.
I expect at some point for some voter fraud to be proven (probably a 50/50 split with some cheeky Republicans and Democrats) and I expect the proof of a few dozen false votes to be used to extrapolate there are millions of false votes - falsely of course.
I haven't seen you post one reply on this forum that wasn't glaringly disingenuous. You try (and fail) to come off as if you're having an honest discussion or debate with someone, yet your side of the argument always 'wins'. Every goddamn time.
You try and hide your seething hatred for Republicans, but you're terrible at it. Your posts are boring and tedious. You go on and on about alllllllllll of these studies that you've supposedly read, but when you were asked in another thread to cite an example, you ignored the user you were responding to all of a sudden.
You go out of your way to act like you can be reasonable (not often) and give the other side a little (the smallest) bit of credit, but then you can't help yourself by walking back on it in the most backhanded way possible.
A few dozen?? and you're serious, which means I've been right in my suspicion all along: you are completely delusional.
Last edited:
Considered HARMful
kiwifarms.net
@Menotaur
I don't feel like you've addressed the issues I have raised, at all. I don't mean this in a bad faith, maybe we misunderstood each other so let me clarify.
re; Texas standing. What I meant was: the Supreme Court rejected a suit led by the Texas state (with the attorney general as a representative if I remember correctly) against other state (states?) on the basis of lack of standing. If I'm not messing up the cases, I think that attorney generals from a number of other states join the lawsuit, making it kind of a big deal, where states of the Union suit other states of the Union. In the issue raised by the suit, who or what institution actually has standing to bring such a suit? To me, Court's response sounded like a cop-out, no other jurisdiction was suggested. Basically, go away because we don't want to touch this and you can do nothing to us because we say so, neener-neener.
re: signature match. As far as I know, voter rolls in many states are "dirty'", meaning - they contain a significant number of deceased or moved people. Therefore there's no need to create names out of thin air, especially if the ballots are being already printed, based on these rolls. The signature check is not concerned with matching the exact ballot to exact voter (in fact, this would break the secrecy of the vote, therefore is highly undesirable). The signature check, as far as I know, should be performed on the signature on the internal envelope of the ballot. The states should retain these envelopes for some months (years?) after the election so that an audit can be performed and signatures re-matched if needed. For some reason, there's a very strong sense of obstruction to such audits in states, where the election was hotly contested. Why the resistance?
I don't feel like you've addressed the issues I have raised, at all. I don't mean this in a bad faith, maybe we misunderstood each other so let me clarify.
re; Texas standing. What I meant was: the Supreme Court rejected a suit led by the Texas state (with the attorney general as a representative if I remember correctly) against other state (states?) on the basis of lack of standing. If I'm not messing up the cases, I think that attorney generals from a number of other states join the lawsuit, making it kind of a big deal, where states of the Union suit other states of the Union. In the issue raised by the suit, who or what institution actually has standing to bring such a suit? To me, Court's response sounded like a cop-out, no other jurisdiction was suggested. Basically, go away because we don't want to touch this and you can do nothing to us because we say so, neener-neener.
re: signature match. As far as I know, voter rolls in many states are "dirty'", meaning - they contain a significant number of deceased or moved people. Therefore there's no need to create names out of thin air, especially if the ballots are being already printed, based on these rolls. The signature check is not concerned with matching the exact ballot to exact voter (in fact, this would break the secrecy of the vote, therefore is highly undesirable). The signature check, as far as I know, should be performed on the signature on the internal envelope of the ballot. The states should retain these envelopes for some months (years?) after the election so that an audit can be performed and signatures re-matched if needed. For some reason, there's a very strong sense of obstruction to such audits in states, where the election was hotly contested. Why the resistance?
Menotaur
kiwifarms.net
Ah, OK, Fair enough.
With regards to the Suit that was co-joined with other states I agree with the Courts. The States had no right to argue the results of other States and claim they had somehow suffered a damage under their laws. One has to extrapolate further why the court would not hear such a thing. If the laws of a state were unconstitutional then most certainly they have a right to sue, but the laws under those states governing elections were not successfully ever challenged as being unconstitutional. So it was like suing for damages claiming a Doctor followed the law without ever having a case showing that the Doctor ever followed the law in the first place.
A State can sue over the laws of another State, but not the consequence of those laws - but first they have to have a case that has been successful showing that the law was unjust.
If a course in a State successfully argued a law was wrong then one could extrapolate a damage in another State. But this never happened. The argument in the Texas Court again did not have what was required - a precedent whereby let us say for arguments sake that there had been a successful course showing in PA the laws were unconstitutional and it went t the SC and they overturned the law - then a course might have success by a latter complaint.
One has to see the reason in this: If you could as a State sue another state for consequences of their laws without ever challenging the laws first it would lead to absolute chaos.
With regards to signature verification one has to ask why only the states where the GOP lost was this challenged? Why not all state? The argument was flawed because it was a theory not a wrong. I.E. you could have a theory that every moved or deceased person voted but there was not a proof bought forward that it was so.
No statistical measure ever showed that the hypothetical had even occurred. When they filed the claim in court all they did was go through the list of people who had died recently and claimed they must have voted. GOP and Democrat they didn't know. This is absurd. You have to prove it. You'd also have to show it has a statistical probability of effecting the result and you'd have to prove every single dead person voted for the Democrats. the requirement to have the state secretary alter the logs or for someone to coordinate all the dead people in an entire state as having a ballot is quite an exercise, moreover, there was no country alone that had enough dead people to change a result.
The election rolls did not show this happened. A statistical analysis showed that any "dirty" ballots would have roughly equated to the same margins of loss or wins by democrats or the GOP in any county, and if you want to argue against one county then you have to argue all county's election results must also be technically null and void.
If the audit has been done by the counties as they were asked to do then there is really no point in keeping them because what you are really saying is that the state in question has an entire team dedicated to a fraudulent election and did it not once but at least twice and in some cases 3 times. If this were to hold true that their audits were fraudulent, then in reality you can argue all elections were fraudulent and thus technically all members of the Senate, House and Federal government in 2016, 2020 and earlier are all false certifications.
HymanHive
kiwifarms.net
This is classic tactic of 'shills'. They give your idea a little credit to make it seem like they're on your side, then they manipulate the language of your argument to change the discussion ever so slightly in their direction. They solidify the new direction by adding a 'truth', or something that can't be instantly disagreed upon, then wrap it all up in a summary that agrees with their original position and makes it sound like you agree as well.
I see this format all over the internet. Reddit is a training camp for anyone wanting to easily identify shill accounts. It's like they all get trained on the same rhetorical devices and lingual tricks.
Example:
IF - a little bit of agreement based on a condition of your argument, in this case, fraud
In reality x condition - a lingual trick to make you think you're on the same side
Curious that 2016 is mentioned...
...When we're only talking about 2020...
And earlier? Notice how 2016 AND and earlier is brought up? Not just 2020 and earlier?
Because, in this case, if you agree 2020 was fraudulent, then you must also agree that 2016 was fraudulent. A lingual trick again, to get you to agree to his side of the argument. In this case, Russian collusion in 2016.
These fuckers do it all over the internet and it's a piece of piss to pick apart because they stick to the same format. Every time. Every post.
As for the wall of texts that you see in shill/leftists posts, it works like low-grade gruel in a cult. It wears you down so that you have less desire to fight, argue or correct. You either think "oh whatever, mong" or "i can't be arsed reading that". It's one of the reasons that "no fun allowed" or "cool story bro" has been vilified as a reply; because that instant dismissal makes a shills job impossible. And who do the shills work for?
/autism.
Last edited:
Considered HARMful
kiwifarms.net
I believe they did not challenge the law itself, but rather noncompliance to the law. Meaning - the sued states did not in fact comply with the laws or, in some cases (Pennsylvania?) the executive branch decreed changes on the election process, for which the responsibility falls squarely in the legislative branch. I'd have to double check on that, I'm hazy on the exact details and which complaint was relevant to which state, but you get the idea. I vividly remember that one of the Supreme Court Justices (Thomas?) gave some grief to Pennsylvania over this.
I wouldn't mind a general audit of Everything™. I assume it has something to do with limited resources. Yet, whenever and wherever the resources are eventually prepared for the audit, there is quite a big show of obstructionism, generally coming from the Democrat party. Why is that so?
Why wouldn't they want to conduct audits in areas won by Republicans? As far as I remember, they were gung ho on audits in 2016, for a limited amount of time.
I'm thoroughly confused by mixing statistical arguments with concrete evidence and whether it's in context of any lawsuits that were filled, or pending and possible future audits.
The audit does not [EDITED: missing "not"] need to prove there was anything wrong with anything, because maybe it's all fine and dandy. The audit's purpose is to audit. I don't claim anything one way or the other, except my suspicions, partially stemming from the unwillingness and obstruction to any audit initiatives. I don't need nor want to go into any rabbit hole of theories of votes going one way or the other.
Besides, as far as I know, nobody needs to prove that some of the (potential) unconstitutionally cast votes go one way or the other. The threshold is: whether the number of such unconstitutionally cast votes were higher than the margin of victory. If so, the results of the election are cast in doubt, regardless of which party or person nominally won them. This is the standard.
From my point of view, the sheer amount of hubbub about the issue is the best argument for the full and transparent audits to go forward, to once and for all clear any doubts. And it's an argument for doing something sensible about the voting laws so that such mess never arises again.
Last edited:
Just pick out one sentence from their wall of text and tear into it. Ignore the rest of their points. Not only does it put them on the defensive, it also tends to anger them because most of their "oh so critical" talking points got ignored.
Counter-shilling 101.
voat.co got so bad with shilling that it turned into a shill/countershill circle jerk. I guess kiwifarms has been lucky it hasn't gotten targeted in the same way up until now.
Guess the shills couldn't deal with all the top hats. Although I'm sure we still have a few here, they're just keeping a low profile.
What exactly is being shilled? I'm having a hard time reading through Reee.
big ups liquid richard
kiwifarms.net
If you don't believe in the secret polls that were opened up at midnight so all the bussed in voters could vote 3 times for joe biden, you are a shill.
Nothing, the people obsessed with conspiracies accuse everyone who isn’t fully drinking the Koolaid and presenting evidence that contradicts their theories as shills.
I think what's being shilled is the idea that old man Joe, who has the personality of an anal wart, has fairly won over President Trump in the safest and most secure election of all times. The reeeee'ing is from the fact that the Arizona audit is still ongoing and is producing results, and the realization that other states are joining them now.
Similar threads
- Poll
Find and share Good™ sites Google doesn't want you to see
Ted Wheeler's Vote Was Change to Trump
