"Dude is made of the same snake oil as all the others" As I said, looking forward to his algorithms being debunked but thats not to say, everyone expressing concerns on election results is a fraud. "We can't prove fraud because it's undetectable, therefore, this is proof that there's fraud." A key problem is ballot integrity & transparency, given the past history with electronic voting systems to allow similiar issues to occur again at such a critical point in time is unacceptable. I agree without all the data, including ballot images and careful interpretation of that data by an impartial body with oversight then the integrity of any analysis must be viewed with scepticism.
I just went through one of his "algorithms" which is just fitting a curve onto cherry picked data. I also explained how the whole registration vs population thing isn't some weird thing like he claims. There's no real reason to believe that anything else he claims is true considering his approach in what I've already addressed. He's already shown he's willing to draw fabulous conclusions using circular logic from incomplete data and ignore all other, more likely/reasonable, possibilities. But if there's any specific claim of his that you want to me to look into, feel free to provide me with access to the raw information/data/method he is using.
You've clearly not been paying attention then. Or given any of the videos I've shared a proper viewing. Besides, I'm pretty sure multiple people coordinating election fraud would qualify as a conspiracy. It's not like conspiracies don't exist in the world. Indeed, you and others have been screaming about some sort of conspiracy between Trump and Russia for years now. However ill-defined and based on faulting information. If that deserves investigation than surely this does as well, if only to prove those "conspiracy theorists" wrong and assure them and the world that Biden did in fact win "fair and square" like they demand we accept? And when you want to dismiss serious questions you can come up with crappy strawmen... however, to humor you for a bit, because I respect you most of the time... It's an anomoly. When you put through a patch on a game, and suddenly the number of players playing and/or using specific aspects of a game shifts in an unexpected manner, it's worth checking to see if there was some bug in the patch. Is it in itself proof that fraud occured? No, but it's evidence to investigate what all might have been different. Not just 2016, also 2012, and 2008. In fact, despite all evidence to the contrary outside of the claimed ballot totals (both before and after the election), Biden is apparently the most popular presidential candidate in history. Even more so than the (conventionally and historically) more popular Obama. This isn't just weirdness, it's another anomoly, tacked into the anomoly above and below. Further more, this is despite his underperforming in most counties and states. In other words, there was an above average number of Democratic votes in only specific locations, and those were in tightly contested races in Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Arizona, etc. This reduction is absurd. First of all, it isn't just that "absentee ballots favored Democrats" is the ratios, particularly in counties which otherwise voted much more evenly. You're a smart guy that knows statistics and maths. You're better than this. A non-specific analogy: If you flip a coin 20000 times in a row, it's possible that only 6% of those flips will result in a "heads." Yet while possible it's unlikely, especially when the overall result was still close to 50/50 and there were NO other similar anomolies for the opposite result. It's evidence of fraud because a % of a given locations' population will not be eligable to vote. This due to being: too young (biggest factor), a felon (in some states at least), not a citizen of the nation, etc. Non-specific example: If you have 95% voting registry in a given county... what happened to all the kids in that county? Especially in major metro areas, which are more likely to have foriegn residents (legal or otherwise) contributing to that population tally. Even more so if that hasn't happened before in that county and there was no major population shift. It's again an anomoly. If there's no corrosponding explanation for the demographic shift, what happened to all those people? The old or the new, where did they come from and are they really a resident? What happens when you have so many statistical anomolies? Is that not worth looking into? My respect for you on this matter is waning greatly, and I'm not going to bother responding to these strawmen, as they are the most ridiculous of the lot. Besides, let's take a look at one county in specific, Maricopa Arizona: An independent audit ordered by the State Senate has uncovered at least the following: 1. The County claims to have not had passwords to the administration of voting machines, which means they had no way to administer the election they were supposed to run. 2. The County claims to have shared Voter Machine Routers with other databases, including Police and Health (and are using the idea of "comprosing police security" as a reason to withhold handing the Routers over to the audit, despite a subpeona requiring them to do so), this, if true, is in violation of Arizona and County election laws, and by itself would create a huge breach of security for the entire 2.1 million votes by their own admission. 3. Someone deleted files and directories from the voting machines on April 12th, shortly before they were turned over to the audit. This is in violation of election laws which require that all voting information be kept for at least 22 months. 4. Chain of custody documents were withheld from the auditing group. Additionally, several ballots (which were supposed to be sealed individually) were found with their seals broken or missing. Further, batches of ballots did not match their labeling. For example, a box of ballots claiming to have 200 ballots would only have 190, etc. Tens of thousands at least were missing in this manner (which, is just the one county, but still could be enough to alter the outcome of the very close election results previously reported). 5. Despite a legal subpeona from the Arizona Senta requiring them to, Dominion Voting Systems is refusing to hand over key information (passwords for example). Those are only a few of the problems with that county, what I could remember off the top of my head. Maricopa county was one of those with a number of anomolies mentioned above. It is worth looking into the others with similar anomolies to ensure they do not have similar issues come up. If nothing else, if you're right such audits should prove you right, no? And if you're unwilling to give such things even a chance, because you heard some rumor or some other thing that makes you think the audit process is somehow invalid or illegal or immoral... than you are the conspiracy theorist just as much as those you try to condemn with that angle. But hey, if you have proof of it, show me, I promise I'll at least listen to any new information you supply, though whether I accept it or not depends on how well it stands up. Embrace transparency... and be less keen to hold onto what the media tells you to think about something in place of seeing the truth of a thing with your own eyes. Whether people think the election was "stolen" or not; transparency can only be a good thing here.
I fail to see how that's relevant because I never claimed anything of the sort? Since you missed why I said this, the point was that the "issue" being raised about voter registration has a perfectly reasonable explanation that these people ignore. See, if these people were after the truth - they would look for reasonable explanations and try to rule them out. Instead, they pretend no other explanations exist except FRAUD. You can't do that. Let me use an "analogy" as you keep doing. You can't say "well, I can't see the sun today so it must not have risen." No, there are many reasons why you might not see the sun (including just keeping your eyes closed) - the only explanation isn't that the sun isn't there. Honestly, even you choose to ignore it as evidenced by this reply: I fully agree it's suspicious and deserves a look - you should absolutely look at stuff like that and figure out why the number is higher than you would expect (which, there are actually explanations for as I pointed out). It's certainly NOT actual evidence of voter fraud. That's crazy. This would be like saying, "Well, there's a gun here, we don't know if it was fired, but it could have been fired, so it's proof that there was a murder." No, there are reasonable explanations for why a gun might be in possession of a person, and it doesn't automatically mean that a crime was committed because a gun you didn't expect to find showed up. That's not how EVIDENCE works. ~ And taking my summary of generalized arguments and calling them "strawmen" is kind of absurd. The point is that none of those things are PROOF of voter fraud. They might be statistical anomalies warranting further investigation. They might have reasonable explanations or not. But the people using these arguments don't actually investigate it. They stop at showing you the "weirdness" and imply that it is enough as proof. It is not. I am honestly very confused at how you could claim that such a thing is actual evidence of voter fraud. It's only evidence of voter registrations being a high number as compared to current population - which, in of itself, is not voter fraud. ~ Here is the Pew report I mentioned on the subject: https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/l...ets/2012/pewupgradingvoterregistrationpdf.pdf This should tell you that drawing conclusions from data that has a 12.5% rate of problems might be problematic. It's also not a new problem, here's an article about Alabama (not a swing state) where they found 6 counties with higher registered voters than adults of voting age... in 2008 where McCain won by over 20% margin: https://www.wsfa.com/story/9197360/6-counties-have-voter-rolls-exceeding-population/ And apparently Alabama seems to have this problem constantly for whatever reason. Here's a 2014 article: https://www.al.com/wire/2014/04/some_alabama_counties_have_mor.html Does this mean there can't be fraud? No, but it does offer a reasonable explanation for some forms of unusual voter registration patterns in 2020 (in particularly, high % of registrations relative to population). Especially since they don't look at trends in the voter registrations, only this one year if they could show that the registered voters suddenly jumped from a reasonable number to a ridiculous number, that would be very suspicious but it's still not FRAUD and you'd have to ask what could have caused the jump before you can draw any real conclusions. For example, if we had said "Hey, look at these counties in Alabama that had more registered voters than voting age adults" we could say, "Um... they have this problems for years and years... not sure why they haven't fixed it, but it's hard to say this is evidence for fraud in 2020 when it's always been that way here. Still, Alabama should really get this stuff sorted out." At the same time though, knowing this information, we have to ask why Alabama has not been focused as a voter fraud mecca because of this? Probably because as I mentioned it's not a swing state so no one cares, lol Immediately jumping to "this is evidence of voter fraud" is very much the definition of "jumping to conclusions." You might say, "Well, geez, 1 in 8 is faulty data? This much errors/inaccuracies seem like it could be a problem." ABSOLUTELY. And we should look into what is causing it and try and fix it - most likely this means looking into modernizing the systems - but this is the kind of work that involves state to state co-operation, information sharing, etc. which isn't really America's strong suit. And at the same time, it still doesn't mean fraud has occurred. Another thing to note is that population figures are based on the census and other government collected data. Civic participation in these things are somewhat lower in America than other countries, so now you are using data that's known to have a high error rate (voter registration) and comparing it to census data (which is an estimate based on people who bothered to reply and absolutely undercounts certain populations). This was not in reference to demographic shifts, but rather the implication that voter registration vs population should be consistent from county to county and state to state and if they aren't, then it's implied this is evidence of fraud, along with the idea that things matching his "key" that he generated using the same data means that it's also "weird" and evidence of fraud. In other words, it doesn't matter whether he can predict the pattern in a county - if he can, it's fraud, if he can't, it's fraud. Which is just absurd. And yes, anomalies should ABSOLUTELY be looked into it. And they OFTEN ARE, as I already demonstrated with regards to this voter registration issue. These people pretend they are the first ones to find these things, but they aren't, and there are known, reasonable explanations, as well as other watchdog groups who have already survived similar "anomalies" in other elections. But you can't go, "oh, I think I have an anomaly, therefore I found evidence of fraud." That's the opposite of looking into it. Instead, it's fishing for evidence that fits your pre-determined conclusion and then NOT looking into the evidence to see where it actually leads, and instead slotting it neatly into your narrative without further qualification. This is the problem with most of these claims - they are individual bits of information and data that doesn't prove anything, and often have reasonable explanations or isn't unusual, but they are being framed by the right wing media machine as "evidence" while all criticisms of this jumping to conclusions is dismissed as "well, don't you care about transparency and election integrity?" as though one can't want that and still be skeptical of claims about widespread voter fraud at the same time.
live right where this audit is happening and even many Republicans in this state thinks this audit is bullshit. Our local radio which is heavily pro-Trump calls it a "clown show." Here is some other stuff they have claimed and other fun stuff that has happened: There are Chinese ballots shipped in from China, you can tell because of bamboo (by the Ballots were fed to chickens and then the chickens blown up Election data was deleted (after which they said it wasn't, they just didn't weren't looking in the right place) And now they have changed their story again and now claim that it WAS deleted, but they managed to uncover it because they are experts They also stored the ballots in shared lockers whose combinations were available to many people, including people not part of the audit They were marking ballots with blue pens... one of the colors approved for use on ballots - which means if they mark them, it'd basically be tampering with the ballots, sure there are ways to forensically analyze the ink to determine which came first and whatever, but man Oh yea, this "independent audit" is run by a Qanon guy who is very pro-Trump (the fact that you describe a Republican controlled legislation hiring a known pro-Trump guy to run an audit as "independent" is laughable) And they also had at least one official who lost in the 2020 election on site helping with the "audit" and when journalists exposed this they kicked them offsite After fighting tooth and nail to get as close to the counts as possible in the actual election, the audit's "live stream" is so far away you can't actually see anything There were actually a number of reputable firms with experience auditing elections that bid on this job for the AZ Senate... the AZ Senate contacted none of them, and were unable to tell reporters how they came across CyberNinjas or why they choose this particular firm which has zero experience in this field and whose leadership has an easily demonstrable pre-existing bias concerning this matter This is not even all of it. Every day some other nonsense comes out of the process that makes you go, "Really?" For example, did you know their handbook of how to handle the audit doesn't include instructions on how to handle common ballot issues like double marked ballots? How can you trust an audit that doesn't have a way to handle something like that? The whole thing has been absolutely nonsense and there is no reason to trust any of their claims until they provide actual verifiable evidence of any of their claims instead of just claiming it. They have been provided with UNPRECEDENTED access to election information and systems and have uncovered no proof of any actual wrongdoing - and keep demanding more access with no justification. The fact is that they have no experience doing any of this, and their access means that the state will have to spend a lot of money reconfiguring everything so that this exposure isn't a huge security concern.
Except that wasn't the argument in the lawsuit. The lawsuit basically used the 2016 results to try and claim 2020 was weird, despite the fact that absentee ballots favoring Democrats was something that was new in 2020 due to the pandemic. But somehow, the guy decided it was fine to just pretend there was no difference and calculated a very low probability for the result... I mean, what? I have no idea what your analogy is referring to, so you will have to be more specific with some actual examples and data. Honestly, your entire reply is exactly like these videos - vague, non-specific things, claims with no proof, and no actual data presented to analyze. As I said to @L33Ch, I would be happy to do some analysis on the claims provided, but there generally isn't anything to analyze, it's just words. And he hasn't provided any. And your reply also had nothing really specific that can be analyzed. If you want me to take this stuff more seriously... then give me some more serious stuff to actually look at with something I can sink my teeth into. Show me what I missed in the stuff you have shared that you think needs a closer look so I can do that. But there's a lot of words and claims being made with regards to this whole thing and I don't feel like trying to guess what you think is important or critical because I feel like whatever I look at, you will tell me something else didn't get looked at closely enough. So far, I am the only one here who has brought any such thing to the table and analyzed it. I picked that one because he actually showed the numbers/charts and the methodology being used so I could actually critique it. I hadn't actually seen that until I went out of my way to specifically look it up for this thread instead of just serving up rhetoric only for it to be largely ignored and brushed aside as "strawman." Baffling.
Possibly, OR, the fact that they take things with reasonable explanations and turn them into "proof" of wrong doing and use these "investigations" and "audits" to undermine public trust in our institutions without actually desiring to seek the truth. Which, of course, is exactly how it's played out and how virtually all voter fraud investigations in this country has gone. A primary example is when Texas claimed that 95,000 voters had been flagged for "citizenship review." The right ran with this, implying that all these people had voted illegally and that this was just the tip of the iceberg. Former President Trump himself claimed this was proof of "rampant voter fraud." The problem here was that they were simply "flagged" due - there was no confirmation that they were not eligible to vote or that they had even attempted to vote at all. Similar things happened in the past, such as in Florida in 2012, when they flagged 180,000 names to great fanfare... ultimately, just 85 people were removed from voter rolls, and only a handful had any sort of voting history. This tactic of just tossing stuff up and hoping it sticks should you that these "investigations" aren't about finding the truth about real fraud but rather to perpetuate the narrative that there is rampant voter fraud. Because if they had any actual proof, you can be certain they would be shouting it from the rooftops. The fact that there is largely only nonsense like this should be a huge red flag about the veracity of their claims. I agree, transparency is great - but that's not what they are after - if it was, AZ journalists and election officials wouldn't have had to fight so hard to get access to the process and their documentations. Just this week, the election boards (Republican controlled, mind you) filed to make sure these auditers are keeping their documents and records because no one really knows what the hell they are doing to the stuff they have been given.
Look, I admit I am biased against all this because the entire voter fraud industry has been doing this for as long as I've been in the US. They keep looking and looking and always claim "election integrity" and "transparency" but release press releases and statements that they often have to walk back. They never find real proof of anything widespread and instead just come up with big numbers and gotchas that don't amount to proof such as what I mentioned above. Trump's voter fraud commission disbanded without releasing a report. Many who was on the commission have since revealed they were basically given a report that already had conclusions drawn and prescribed sections to try and fill out to validate those conclusions. At some point, we have to say enough is enough, we've been through this continuously, you have to show something credible to continue on the fishing expeditions instead of just using taxpayer to perpetuate a narrative for as long as possible.
You will have to show me where I was "screaming" about a "conspiracy" between Trump and Russia "for years." The fact is that the Russian election interference happened as verified by American intelligence agencies - if you believe that this is "faulting information" then we will have to agree to disagree but that investigation was based on evidence from the men and women that the nation entrusted with defending our national security - so I am going to trust them more than you. The investigations showed links between the Trump campaign and Russia. That's it. Those are the facts. We don't know if Trump was personally involved, and though it seems unlikely he had no hand in it, since there's no real proof there's nothing we can do about it and it would be wasteful to continue to investigate it at this time. What I wanted investigated - foreign interference in an American election - was investigated, to that end, I am satisfied. In fact, I was pleased to see that some people were held accountable for actions I personally feel are detrimental to the interests of the country. I am not satisfied by the lack of action by Congress to prevent future election interference from foreign agents, but that's not on Trump. Again, if I have forgotten what I said on topic, I apologize, but I do not believe anything I said on the subject could ever be described as "screaming about some sort of conspiracy between Trump and Russia for years" and if I am correct then I am frankly disturbed that you would mischaracterize me in such a way. At worst, I may have joked about it, but even then I honestly don't think I have ever cracked a joke about Trump being a Russian asset. There is plenty of real stuff I dislike Trump for, I don't need to go into something that's largely unsubstantiated. But memory is a flighty beast, so I suppose anything is possible ~ By contrast, all the usual suspects to determine whether something happened in the 2020 election have largely said they didn't find any evidence of widespread fraud and there's been many lawsuits, investigations, and audits across the country, none of which have yet to find any actual evidence for the BIG claim of widespread fraud, so at this point I find this whataboutism to be pretty weak.
As I said to @L33Ch, I would be happy to do some analysis on the claims provided, but there generally isn't anything to analyze, it's just words. And he hasn't provided any. I willl just fly over to the US , begin a court action and subpoena the data for you , which I could then analyze myself. If u accept the premise that a 2 party system merely provides the illusion of choice, then what does it matter which muppet is currently President ? I find the whole affair little more than a sad reflection of the current state of the "modern" world. " There is one safeguard known generally to the wise, which is an advantage and security to all, but especially to democracies as against despots. What is it? - Distrust " - Demosthenes 4th Century BC
I am not asking for that, clearly. I mean, if there is credible evidence to be investigated, than surely one of the people making these videos has access to some data that has been shared (for example, in a video) or leverages publicly available data (for example, the voter registration stuff). Have you actually looked into the claims being made? Have you tried to see what data they are using to make their claims and verify it for yourself? Are you saying that in all the things you have looked at for voter fraud, you haven't seen anything that you feel has enough factual backing that could stand some additional analysis? Point me at one you think is credible and I can take a look, the same way that I already spent time looking for and presented previously in the thread, demonstrating why I felt the methodology was not rigorous and the conclusions fallacious. The fact is, if there is credible evidence that demonstrates voter fraud, I'd like to know and verify it for myself. I simply haven't seen it so far.
I am not sure how it's relevant to the discussion of whether there is widespread voter fraud. Are you suggesting that voter fraud doesn't matter because it doesn't matter who wins?
And this includes those who tell you to distrust, or the "evidence" they present. If you only distrust the side you disagree with, are you really abiding by this principle? Here's another Demosthenses quote: "The best protection for the people is not necessarily to believe everything people tell them." (Which includes people telling you there's widespread voter fraud or that there is no explanation for something except voter fraud.)
By the way, just in case it isn't clear. Yes, voter fraud happens. Of course it does. There's an entire database of it maintained by the Heritage Foundation: https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud They, however, have a more rigorous methodology for deciding what gets into this database - these are actual, proven cases and you can look at the details of each in the database. What you will see is that PROVEN voter fraud cases are relatively rare given the million of votes cast year after year. Does it mean there aren't more? No, there could absolutely be more, but we must also recognize there's been a ton of focus on voter fraud, and dozens upon dozens of legislations across the country on this issue for the past 20 years. Which then leads to the obvious question of - if such widespread fraud actually exists, why can't we find it despite all these new laws and regulations around voting and election procedures? At what point do we say, "Hey, give us something more concrete before you make MORE new laws and spend MORE taxpayer money?" Ultimately, if these investigations, laws and regulations actually increased accountability and transparency, I'd be more for them as I generally have no problem with laws that make things better for everyone, but more often than not, it seems that their goal is to perpetuate a narrative and leverage that narrative for political gain. If you were to say, "We should have a policy/plan in place to audit every major election," I'd also be fine with that type of idea - because then at least that would seem to be about transparency and election integrity, instead of solely focusing on places that Trump lost, while ignoring the fact that the "anomalies" also tend to exist even in places Trump won or when Trump wasn't running at all. Some states allow you to look up your ballot to see if it's been counted, and those are the types of systems I support. We should do everything we can to give people confidence in our election systems, but this voter fraud narrative's goal appears to be doing the opposite - to undermine confidence and sow distrust, without providing a path towards increasing confidence.
Here is a paper on how election forensics should be done: https://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PA00MXR7.pdf Specifically, the paper has the following passages (emphasis mine): However, election forensics also has three disadvantages: It does not produce definitive proof of fraud, only of statistical anomalies. Finding proof for or explanation of the anomalies could come from in-person electoral monitoring or other social science research on the country or location of interest. It requires advanced statistical knowledge and substantial computing power. The Election Forensics Toolkit presents one potential solution to this challenge, since academic experts perform the statistical work in-house and provide a report that is accessible and intelligible to practitioners. It works best with detailed election results—ideally comprehensive polling-place data on turnout, valid ballots, and vote counts for all parties and candidates. The tools can work with less detailed data, but election forensics are of limited use if election results are provided only as a summary at the national level, or not reported at all. Ideally, a method for detecting electoral fraud should meet each of the following criteria: The method should be sensitive enough to detect anomalies. We want to avoid mislabeling problematic elections as problem-free. In other words, we want to limit false negatives. The method should accurately detect anomalies. The method should reveal anomalies when they arise, but produce null results when no anomalies are present. In other words, we want to limit false positives. The method should involve systematic observation. In order avoid potential bias, wherever possible we want to analyze electoral results in their entirety, ideally at the most fine-grained level possible. This approach is preferable to limited descriptive evidence and select case studies. The method should enable the identification of where, geographically, anomalies have occurred. While it is helpful to know that anomalies exist, ideally methods will identify the locations where those anomalies occur. This facilitates additional analysis and validation and enables more effective responses. Geographic analysis can also take into account the possibility that anomalies may cluster together and be related to other relevant political, cultural, or ethnic factors. The method should produce estimates of uncertainty, indicating how confident we can be in our conclusions. A method need not yield definitive findings to be worthwhile in this setting. Absent definitive findings, a measure of the extent to which the results are likely to be valid is crucial. Most of my criticisms of existing "proof" of voter fraud will violate one or more of these principles. In the paper, they also have analysis of elections with methodology that I do find valid and convincing. You will see how different this type of forensics is compared to the stuff you are seeing from things like the lawsuits, MyPillow guy and the AZ Audit.
For me I like to try to keep it as short and simple as possible. In the original link posted did in fact during a live feed, 100k+ votes appear in the 4 swing states in a short period of time in the early hours and if so how can it be explained. I would expect a large "blue shift" from postal votes but I don't see how this could be the cause. I also look at the persistent issues with the current Dominion system and other similiar electronic voting platforms and ask myself. Is this just gross ineptitude, the results of Bureaucratic Democracy at work? OR a deliberate and systemic manipulation of the voting process from the highest levels, influencing the outcome of an election at the expense of the will of the people? OR in short Fascist Corporatism. Given the current state of the world I'm inclined to lean towards the later conclusion although in truth it's likely a combination of both.
What "persistent issue" are you referring to? ~ Very simple. Votes aren't reported on a single count basis. People count ballots in batches. They tabulate the counts and then they enter them into the computer. And then every so often, they "update" everyone on the count. Some places report often - others report less often. It depends on the rules and regulations used by the local authorities, and also what time of day it is - typically you see faster reports soon after the polls close, but at 2 AM when many poll workers are on break or have gone home for the night, they report less because there's less to report. In other words, what you describe happens regularly. It's only strange if you haven't been paying attention to how votes are counted in the past. ~ Another related thing people point out is... Why does it take so long to count the last 10-20% of the votes? It takes a few hours to count the first 20% of a state, shouldn't the last 20% take the same amount of time? NO. Each county counts their own votes, in their own way. What this means is that at the start of the evening, after polling stations close, you get LOTS of counts, very quickly - because EVERY county is counting, and reporting. But as counties finish counting, they stop reporting. In general, this means smaller counties with low population will tend to finish first, but the larger, more populated counties still need to keep counting. Here is a mock up of that looks like hour to hour: By hour 10, the 5 smaller counties have finished counting and reported fully. 1 of the larger counties also finished, but the 2 largest counties are still counting. You can see that if you focus solely on "total added" it seems very strange that there are very few votes added after hour 10 in most hours, but they come in huge batches. But if you look at the data across the top and understand how each county is counting and reporting, then it isn't so weird at all. Note that "anomalies" like these doesn't just happen in "swing states," it happens virtually everywhere, every election. People just focus on the swing states because that's where people are looking - no one cares that Alaska and Hawaii take a week to fully count their votes because they don't really matter. And instead of looking everywhere (as you should), the voter fraud crowd focuses only on places Trump lost and point to anything they find weird as "evidence." (The mockup assumes that they are counting at the same rate the whole time, and that's not really true either, most counties count faster at the start - because the same thing exists within a county as they do within the state.) ~ So in terms of Blue vs Red, what does it mean for the 2020 election? The following number of factors means that the counts during the earlier hours will favor red, and the latter blue: Mail in ballots can arrive after polls close and still be considered "on time" - and generally, counting of mail in ballots takes longer because they have to open the envelopes and do a bunch of additional checks (since the person didn't vote on a machine or show ID, etc.) In some places, like Alaska, they take one week after polls close to count mail in ballots Larger counties tend to lean blue (while smaller ones lean red), thus, the counties that take longer to count, because they have more ballots, will tend to report more blue votes Normally, mail in ballots counteract this somewhat, but in 2020, this changed due to the pandemic and "blue" voters not wanting to go to the polls Long-story short, this meant the "blue shift" was quite significant, and it makes sense that it would be, AND that it would manifest largely towards the later parts of ballot counting. Those of us paying attention told people that this would be the case, but then President Trump and his allies sought to use this to sow doubt in the election, to the point of calling for counting to end and using the early results to declare victory. ~ Does this mean "no fraud possible?" No, there obviously could be, but ideas like "votes came in batches" or "late votes favored Democrats more than I expected" isn't proof of fraud, especially when there are actually reasonable explanations for these observations. Those perpetuating the voter fraud narrative focuses only on the swing states in order to give the illusion that these patterns only manifest there. At the same time, they don't try and explain the patterns - instead, leave the question hanging in the air, their implication clear. But the truth is that the ballot counting patterns and such actually make sense given what we know about the election (and elections in general). ~ Honestly, if ballot counts were reported in a way that was roughly consistent hour to hour with similar distribution each hour from start to finish... that would actually be far more suspicious because that would suggest that the numbers were generated. It's similar to the "randomness" issue where tend humans think that evenly distributed is what randomness looks like - so much so that if you ask someone to generate random numbers, it is very difficult for us to generate one that is actually reasonably resembles a randomized pattern. So much so that when given 3 "random" sequences (2 created by the same person, 1 from a 2nd person), we are able to predict with great accuracy which 1 of the 3 came from the second person! https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0041531 Ohmin mentioned earlier above that I should know X or Y because I am smart or know stats, etc. which is exactly why I am so skeptical of these claims - because I know that humans are generally kind of bad at this stuff and that there are many valid ways for us to check for these kinds of things and I know how these things SHOULD be analyzed. And if there was widespread fraud, with so many people looking into it, we'd have much more concrete evidence of it by now. The fact that we are still talking about voter registration patterns and conjectures about whether chain of custody was followed and other such things tells me that there is a LACK of real, substantial, statistical analysis that points to widespread voter fraud.
Thanks for the detailed responses, it has clarified a number of nagging questions and so I should reciprocate in kind. Claims of Hacking, foreign ownership etc. made in the video and the resulting defamation lawsuits, much of which could be avoided with a centralised system. It mirrors similiar claims to rig elections in Venezuela for the dictator Hugo Chavez. Problems with non traditional voting methods extend right back to the florida 2000 elections and the fiasco with punch-card ballots. In short Yes and it's indirectly relevant, if both candidates share the same corporate agendas then the long term results will be much the same regardless of the winner. As an example Trump's build a wall policy, rightly condemned as compared to Biden's “Alliance for Prosperity” which is far more insidious. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/...r-central-america-militarised-neoliberal-hell Short term Biden's proactive Covid stance will certainly save more American lives but as to who ultimately wins the body count is anyone's guess.
Ah, the way it was phrased suggested one specific thing. Well, to this stuff, I'll say... yes... "claims." For example, there is no proof that there is any foreign owners for Dominion. Americans would never go for a centralized system - it's antithetical to the idea of America. A centralized system would also fix a lot of voter registration problems. The US doesn't even have one driver's license - each state runs their own version and has their rules/regulations about driving and cars. It's pretty inefficient, but it's also by design. I personally would be fine with more centralized systems, but I also understand why American are leery of it. Some would argue that a centralized system makes it easier to perpetrate fraud and that the decentralized nature of the US election systems makes it less susceptible to attacks, so I am not sure they would agree with you on this.
