Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)

[Silvanus]

That's what challengers are SUPPOSED to manually do, with their eyes, but they COULDN'T, because they were kicked out or otherwise kept at a distance. That's why they're legally required to be there. If you care about democracy at all, you should, at least, be outraged just by these allegations alone.

Just by allegations? I should be outraged by allegations without proof?

We've already been over this: they weren't kicked out. The Trump legal team screamed bloody murder about nobody being able to poll-watch, and then when it came to court, they just admitted that poll-watchers had been present and watching. Last time this was brought up, you said that poll-watchers had been at some but not all counting centres. OK.... but that's not the claim the Trump legal team is making in court. They're not even pursuing that claim any more; it's just been dropped.

So, what, then? I'm just supposed to take their word? How can this be refuted when nothing solid is put forth to refute, and it's not even pursued by the plaintiffs in court?!

---

On a side-note, I find it pretty funny that you'd insinuate others don't "care about democracy", and then unironically post Sidney Powell, an individual who opined that we should just entirely disregard the vote from several entire states and just give the electoral votes to Trump.

But besides that, forensic auditing can detect all that. Scanning can be done to detect whether the signatures were hand-written or printed, or if there's a crease in the paper or not.

You don't have any idea of the scale of process you're requesting, do you? Signature-detecting software for, say, a criminal case takes a while to come to a conclusion for a single match. You're requesting this be repeated on an industrial scale for 160 million people. This alone would take years, and hundreds of millions of dollars to mass-produce machines of the kind that are currently only in specialist crime-labs, in order to settle an issue for which the complainant hasn't provided a single instance.

Do you expect them to have any?
Do you expect them to actually steal a real ballot and present it as evidence?
Come on. You're expecting them to have evidence that only law enforcement would be able to gather.
It's like expecting a person with a bullet wound to prove who it was that shot them.

You're the one with ludicrous demands of evidence.

Obviously I don't expect them to have the physical ballots in hand. I do, however, expect them to point to a specific official, or a specific counting centre, or a specific machine, and make a specific allegation that can be demonstrated or refuted. Because so far, we've had a whole mess of vague finger-pointing and not much else.

It hasn't. They're just asking for a proper investigation to be done. Actually, they know that there's not enough time for a proper investigation because there's a time limit.

But I don't know why anyone would be against such an investigation, other than A) they don't want their result overturned B) they don't actually care about democracy and having safe and secure elections.

But that was apparent in 2016, nobody cared about democracy because the democratic process elected a President that they didn't like.
This is the result of that, resorting to crimes in order to oust him from office.

Give us something demonstrable to investigate!

What you're calling an audit wasn't an audit, it's a recount.
You can count the same fraudulent votes over and over again, but that won't prove that they were counterfeit.

It involved a hand recount, to make sure the machines weren't miscounting or preferentially tallying one way or the other. That's what an audit entails. Sorry, what exactly do you want except for human beings to physically look at the ballots and check for errors in the tally? What does an "audit" involve to you? Reading the tea-leaves? Consulting the stars?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

What does an "audit" involve to you? Reading the tea-leaves? Consulting the stars?

It involves finding the fraud that is most definitely there. It's not an audit unless everyone goes in knowing that it's fraudulent and that they will find the fraud if they just look hard enough.

 

[Houseman]

Just by allegations? I should be outraged by allegations without proof?

You should be outraged that nobody is doing anything about these allegations.

they weren't kicked out. The Trump legal team screamed bloody murder about nobody being able to poll-watch, and then when it came to court, they just admitted that poll-watchers had been present and watching

That means "there was at least one poll watcher that wasn't kicked out".
Nobody said "ALL the Republican poll watchers were kicked out".

How can this be refuted when nothing solid is put forth to refute

This is your impossible burden of proof. What do you want, the Trump team to detain and interrogate poll watchers until they confess?

You don't have any idea of the scale of process you're requesting, do you?

No process is too big for the election, the #1 most important thing ever to the country, right? It's important that NOBODY's vote be disenfranchised by fraud, right? That's we can't have voter-id, because that would disenfranchise a small number of poor people, right?

Again, we wouldn't have to do this if there had been security on the front end, which means challengers. But they couldn't do their job.

Signature-detecting software for, say, a criminal case takes a while to come to a conclusion for a single match. You're requesting this be repeated on an industrial scale for 160 million people.

No, I'm not. Plus, they already have and used signiature-matching software for this election, as it was the subject of at least one lawsuit.
I'm just talking about taking a sample of ballots, running them through the a process to detect if they were printed or not, and then use that result as the basis for further auditing.

I do, however, expect them to point to a specific official, or a specific counting centre, or a specific machine, and make a specific allegation that can be demonstrated or refuted

They did that. But nobody agreed to do an investigation. One example is the midnight ballots pulled out from under the table in Georgia.
Trumps team can't just order around the officials, you know.

It involved a hand recount, to make sure the machines weren't miscounting or preferentially tallying one way or the other. That's what an audit entails.

And, as you said, that only detects this one type of fraud. It doesn't detect printed ballots.

What does an "audit" involve to you? Reading the tea-leaves? Consulting the stars?

Signature matching, which can be done by hand. Looking up whether or not the addresses were valid, which should be done BEFORE the voter information and the ballot are separated. Running a sample through a process to see if it was printed or not. Those sorts of things.

 

[Shadyside]

Is this the longest thread on the site?

 

[Mister Mumbler]

Is this the longest thread on the site?

Yep. I think the runner up is the "What are you currently playing" thread.

 

[Gordon_4]

Is this the longest thread on the site?

Yes, and hopefully it will be dead very soon.

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

Is this the longest thread on the site?

This thread is pure madness...

I love it

 

[Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)]

Yes, and hopefully it will be dead very soon.

 

[Shadyside]

This thread is pure madness...

I love it

Yes, and hopefully it will be dead very soon.

Yep. I think the runner up is the "What are you currently playing" thread.

I'm so mad, cuz I wanted my election thread to be the longest in the site. I worked so hard to make a thread for gamers to debate in circles about politics.

 

[SilentPony]

I'm so mad, cuz I wanted my election thread to be the longest in the site. I worked so hard to make a thread for gamers to debate in circles about politics.

I mean don't think the election is over just because the electoral college votes tomorrow. The cultists have enough in them to keep this going for another 5 million years.

 

[Houseman]

Interesting...

Sherikia Hawkins, celebrated Michigan democratic official, arraigned on six felony charges of election fraud

November 13, 2020 UPDATE: The criminal case against Sherikia Hawkins is still ongoing as she continues to serve as the

www.lawofficer.com

And this was in 2018.
See, that's how long it takes to prosecute individuals for this. And what happens to the people who were elected through this fraud? Nothing. They get to keep their seats and never face any blowback. So you can see the problem with that, right? The fall guys go to jail, the "elected" officials enjoy their office.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Plus, they already have and used signiature-matching software for this election, as it was the subject of at least one lawsuit.

Signature matching, which can be done by hand.

But what if the software has like servers in Germany where an algorithm disproportionately finds more fraudulent signatures for Trump? What if Nancy Pelosi has stake int that software company or that software company once had dealings with Hugo Chavez. Everything must be investigated and the stuff that is investigated must be investigated and so on and so on. WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN?!?!

Signature matching DOES NOT WORK. Why do you keep bringing it up?

 

[Dalisclock]

Is this the longest thread on the site?

Though in the old days there was THE MEGA-THREAD.

We don't talk about the MEGA THREAD.

 

[Dalisclock]

Interesting...

Sherikia Hawkins, celebrated Michigan democratic official, arraigned on six felony charges of election fraud

November 13, 2020 UPDATE: The criminal case against Sherikia Hawkins is still ongoing as she continues to serve as the

www.lawofficer.com

And this was in 2018.
See, that's how long it takes to prosecute individuals for this. And what happens to the people who were elected through this fraud? Nothing. They get to keep their seats and never face any blowback. So you can see the problem with that, right? The fall guys go to jail, the "elected" officials enjoy their office.

Yeah, and there's a fuck in the oval office right now whose been funneling government funds to his private businesses for years and tried to shake down the ukraine last year.

God knows how long it will take for him to get prosecuted, if ever.

 

[SilentPony]

Yeah, and there's a fuck in the oval office right now whose been funneling government funds to his private businesses for years and tried to shake down the ukraine last year.

God knows how long it will take for him to get prosecuted, if ever.

I always felt it was gonna be like Thomas Jefferson. For a few hundred years everyone is like "Boy howdy, that sure was a swell guy" and then one day someone is like "Oh yeah, that dude was one of America's first serial rapists, torturers, molesters and pedophiles and we should all hate him" and then the future people are like "Yeah...yeah that's probably right."

Imagine what Captain Picard wrote about Trump in his 3rd grade history report, about the rape, incest, bribes, corruption...

 

[Gordon_4]

You referenced Aliens, I now automatically like you.

But what if the software has like servers in Germany where an algorithm disproportionately finds more fraudulent signatures for Trump? What if Nancy Pelosi has stake int that software company or that software company once had dealings with Hugo Chavez. Everything must be investigated and the stuff that is investigated must be investigated and so on and so on. WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN?!?!

Signature matching DOES NOT WORK. Why do you keep bringing it up?

Hang on, hold up. The ballots are signed? So these ballots are not secret? Wha?

 

[Houseman]

But what if the software has like servers in Germany where an algorithm disproportionately finds more fraudulent signatures for Trump? What if Nancy Pelosi has stake int that software company or that software company once had dealings with Hugo Chavez. Everything must be investigated and the stuff that is investigated must be investigated and so on and so on. WHO WATCHES THE WATCHMEN?!?!

Signature matching DOES NOT WORK. Why do you keep bringing it up?

I'm not advocating for signature matching software. I prefer signature-matching people.
I keep bringing it up because it's THE RULES. It's THE LAW. It's what's SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN!
Both a Democrat and a Republican are supposed to look at the signatures and agree on them before the ballot is cast.

That's front-end security.

Hang on, hold up. The ballots are signed? So these ballots are not secret? Wha?

The outer envelope of mail-in ballots are signed. They're supposed to verify that signature, then remove the inner from the outer. Once they do that, the inner can never be tied back to the outer.


---
Speaking of signatures:

 

[crimson5pheonix]

If a Republican ran like this it probably wouldn't matter what dumb shit they say elsewhere, they'd slaughter the dems.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I'm not advocating for signature matching software. I prefer signature-matching people.
I keep bringing it up because it's THE RULES. It's THE LAW. It's what's SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN!
Both a Democrat and a Republican are supposed to look at the signatures and agree on them before the ballot is cast.

That's front-end security.

In Pennsylvania it's law that you CANNOT throw out ballots due to signature matching. You go to court and provide EVIDENCE that something you claim is true and the court looks at the EVIDENCE and decides if it's strong enough. You claim that the most important thing is the election but you want to enforce something that makes the election less representative of the people?

For over a century, New Mexico law stipulated that "idiots" were ineligible to vote. In 2016, the discriminatory language - which referred to mentally disabled people - was finally repealed.

You wanna go start a case that all elections in New Mexico have to be thrown out prior to 2016? Because I'm pretty fucking sure, they weren't following that law.

 

[Gordon_4]

If a Republican ran like this it probably wouldn't matter what dumb shit they say elsewhere, they'd slaughter the dems.

When he says ‘based’ I’m assuming he means ‘biased’ or is this another linguistic somersault I’ve missed out on?