Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)

[Hades]

The Washington Times: Georgia announces signature matching review in all counties

I'm using outline because the website had TWO annoying overlay pop-ups that don't instantly go away.

Outline.com

outline.com

Watch it devolve into Republican trying to strike every vote where the signature isn't an exact copy of the example.

 

[Trunkage]

Watch it devolve into Republican trying to strike every vote where the signature isn't an exact copy of the example.

It does make me wonder if this will hurt them in the long run. Older people tend to lose their ability to write neatly, thus less likely to match to their signature on the database

 

[Houseman]

Watch it devolve into Republican trying to strike every vote where the signature isn't an exact copy of the example.

Hah, as if Republicans would even be allowed in the room.

 

[dreng3]

The Washington Times: Georgia announces signature matching review in all counties

Just to get you on the record, would you agree that there was no fraud of significant and election-altering degree in Georgia if the signature matching review find that there are no differences(with a margin of error of 2%) compared to previous elections?

 

[Houseman]

would you agree that there was no fraud of significant and election-altering degree in Georgia if the signature matching review find that there are no differences(with a margin of error of 2%) compared to previous elections?

The margin of error of votes between Trump and Biden was .2%, so 2% would be election-altering.

But it depends. With the other signature audit, they found 11% inconclusive, which meant they couldn't verify whether it was valid or not, but those were passed as "not fraudulent". That seems like a loophole to me: only forge signatures of people who don't have any signatures on record.

But assuming everything comes up Millhouse after this audit, then I'll admit that people didn't forge signatures in an significant and election-altering degree. That doesn't mean they didn't cheat in other ways, like with the Dominion system, but there's an ongoing forensic audit regarding that.

I will also be gracious and assume that they don't cheat the audit by pre-selecting known good samples to test, and haven't already shredded evidence, etc...

 

[tstorm823]

No, he is a conservative. He just declines to do the Republican party's onanistic fantasies for them when they're supposed to do it politically.

Your analysis is silly. I'm basically telling you exactly how he sees himself. Shall I quote him? "I do not think beginning with an all-encompassing approach to constitutional interpretation is the best way to faithfully construe the document." His stated approach to jurisprudence is to not ground his decision in one ideology but to treat each case individually.

And like, do you think his opinions are conservative? Shall we consult a graph? He's practically the midpoint and moving that direction.

You're just wrong.

The problem people like you face is that you want to be reasonable, but on the other hand you don't want to accept that your much beloved party is now officially endorsing conspiracy theory and attempts to ignore democratic process. Caught in the cognitive dissonance, you're trying to steer a middle course, but a middle course between sanity and insanity is merely being half-insane.

It's your perspective that's broken. We've been told for years that the election was stolen. The 2016 election. Somehow that's not conspiracy theories and cognitive dissonance. What's the difference? Recounts and court appeals are perfectly normal aftermath in a presidential election. What isn't normal is this overblown reaction. In 2016, experts suggested Clinton should sue to challenge the entire electoral college system as unconstitutional. Is that a coup? Am I supposed to fear a military takeover of the country because people suggest ridiculous lawsuits? Why are you taking them so seriously? There were certainly people who suggested Obama would invoke martial law and refuse to leave office, and those people were rightly ignored as loonies. Do you want to be a loony?

Well, maybe so, though I'd say the term "activist judges" here just means "judges that made a call I don't personally like".

Quite the opposite. I think most of what they did was perfectly reasonable as policy. It was the method and the tone that caused problems. Like, I have no problem with the idea that there's a pandemic and people should be allowed to vote without congregating. That's fine. But it should be the legislature doing that. Well, they're in a spat with the governor (who's pandemic response is the worst executed policy I've ever seen. His lockdown was "here's a list of things we deem important enough to stay open and everything else closes" and the first draft neglected to include pharmacies), so bipartisan changes to the system weren't likely, and I appreciate that as well, BUT their decisions became silly. Everyone can mail in vote, even if its late, even if its late and we can't tell when it was mailed, even if its actually done in person early, everything's allowed. Republicans ask "well, if they're voting early, do we get to have poll watchers to maintain election transparency?" NAH. Polling places aren't open so the law says no poll watchers, because apparently the letter of the law starts mattering exactly when it pisses off Republicans.

It's not that rule changes weren't justified given the circumstance. It's that they were formulated as a giant middle finger to Republicans. A middle finger that was more important to them than the election or the pandemic or the state's laws they are tasked with.

How many activist judges can there be left after Trump’s purge of judicial ranks?

I don't know of any judges purged by Trump, or even a legal mechanism by which he could accomplish that.

 

[dreng3]

The margin of error of votes between Trump and Biden was .2%, so 2% would be election-altering.

But it depends. With the other signature audit, they found 11% inconclusive, which meant they couldn't verify whether it was valid or not, but those were passed as "not fraudulent". That seems like a loophole to me: only forge signatures of people who don't have any signatures on record.

But assuming everything comes up Millhouse after this audit, then I'll admit that people didn't forge signatures in an significant and election-altering degree. That doesn't mean they didn't cheat in other ways, like with the Dominion system, but there's an ongoing forensic audit regarding that.

I will also be gracious and assume that they don't cheat the audit by pre-selecting known good samples to test, and haven't already shredded evidence, etc...

So that's a no, in which case there isn't really any need to have an audit because the conspiracy theorists (ie. you) wouldn't actually care about the result if it disproved their claims.

 

[Houseman]

Everyone can mail in vote, even if its late, even if its late and we can't tell when it was mailed, even if its actually done in person early, everything's allowed. Republicans ask "well, if they're voting early, do we get to have poll watchers to maintain election transparency?" NAH. Polling places aren't open so the law says no poll watchers, because apparently the letter of the law starts mattering exactly when it pisses off Republicans.

Tangentially related to that, there are higher standards for voting in person than for mail-in ballots, which benefits democrats over republicans, and could be seen as voter suppression in the same way that requiring an ID to vote is voter suppression against those who are "too poor to get an id".

As the PDF I posted before states: "Georgia, for example, requires ID for voting in-person and Michigan will only allow provisional voting without an ID. However, in both Georgia and Michigan, a valid ID is not required to vote by mail so long as the person has already registered in a previous election."

And also: "in Wisconsin, mail-in ballots were accepted without witness signatures placed properly in the allocated envelope location.98 A comparable process for in-person voting would have resulted in the invalidation of the vote."

Then there are different standards for ballot curing:

"In Pennsylvania, there was a clear difference between how ballots were – or were not – cured in Republican counties versus Democrat counties. When Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar issued illegal guidance authorizing counties to cure ballots, this illegal guidance was not followed in at least eight different Republican counties. 99 Meanwhile, ballots were cured in Democrat counties under this illegal guidance.100"

So that's a no, in which case there isn't really any need to have an audit because the conspiracy theorists (ie. you) wouldn't actually care about the result if it disproved their claims.

You know what would help with that? Transparency in the process so that we can have faith that more fraud isn't happening behind closed doors.

 

[dreng3]

You know what would help with that? Transparency in the process so that we can have faith that more fraud isn't happening behind closed doors.

You are aware that there were election observers from outside of the US, right? And that states were following the method they have been following for years?
The main problem seems to be that nobody can actually disprove election fraud to a satisfactory degree, or that you move the goal posts everytime someone does.

So let us get it, right here, right now, in writing. And feel free to take your time.
Tell us what standards the election, those involved, and any investigations, would have to meet in order to for you to accept the outcome.
Consider this very carefully, because you are being called out right now, whatever your response I will hold you to it, and if you post something unreasonable that no president ever had to live up to you'll only reveal partisan bias.

 

[Seanchaidh]

And like, do you think his opinions are conservative? Shall we consult a graph? He's practically the midpoint and moving that direction.

As any good statistician ought to ask, what is the baseline for comparison? Without explicitly defining what that is and what it means, all you have is a picture with lines.

 

[SilentPony]

SNIP

OH! I can answer on his behalf!

AHEM

"TRUMP WON THE ELECTION BIDEN STOLE IT VIDEO OF PIZZA VANS BIGGEST FRAUD IN HISTORY #MAGA"

I feel like that accurately and fully sums up what he will say is the standard by which he will hold this election. Remember these are the people who still believe 5+ million Mexicans voted illegally in 2016 and that Trump won the popular vote and electoral college both times. They're not what we call "concerned with the complexities of life"

 

[Houseman]

You are aware that there were election observers from outside of the US, right? And that states were following the method they have been following for years?

This year, we had a lot of last-minute rule changes due to covid, to say nothing of 5 years of anti-Trump propaganda, antifa and BLM riots that made everyone think that Republicans were nazis and deserved to be squashed by any means necessary.

So that meant that when someone's mask slipped below their nose, or if they broke the 6-foot rule, republicans (and republicans only) were immediately ejected from the tabulation rooms to cheers and applause, as multiple affidavits attest. That meant that observers had to stand in the corner of the room behind barriers so that they couldn't see anything. That meant that observers have to sit six feet away, behind a plastic shield, so that they could not properly observe the ballots.

That meant we had an influx of mail-in ballots that benefited one party over another. We had unsupervised drop-boxes so that nobody could tell if they were being stuffed.

This year was very different.

The main problem seems to be that nobody can actually disprove election fraud to a satisfactory degree,

Again, transparency would help with this. Letting observers actually do their jobs so they don't have these complaints would eliminate every concern but the Dominion vote-switching theory.

Tell us what standards the election, those involved, and any investigations, would have to meet in order to for you to accept the outcome.

1. Poll watchers allowed to do their jobs
2. Cameras in every tabulation room so that any accusation can be easily verified.
3. All technology involved (tabulation machines) should be made and controlled by the federal government. No more hiding behind "private company, proprietary software" stuff. Any code used should be open-source.

That's all I can think of right now.

 

[CaitSeith]

It does make me wonder if this will hurt them in the long run. Older people tend to lose their ability to write neatly, thus less likely to match to their signature on the database

Doubt it. The Republican stance is zero tolerance to illegal voting, no matter how many legal voters can't vote either.

 

[dreng3]

1. Poll watchers allowed to do their jobs
2. Cameras in every tabulation room so that any accusation can be easily verified.
3. All technology involved (tabulation machines) should be made and controlled by the federal government. No more hiding behind "private company, proprietary software" stuff. Any code used should be open-source.

Congratulations, you managed to address the point of " what standards the election would have to meet in order for you to accept the outcome."
Of course, presumably due to illiteracy (I told you to take your time when responding so you either failed to read that clearly, weren't able to, or elected not to follow simple instructions), you totally neglected the second and third point which were "those involved and any investigation".

Or perhaps you aren't illiterate and just made clear that no matter what you wont accept conclusion that doesn't indicate fraud. If that happens to be the case there would be absolutely no reason to listen to you or anything you say, as you will already have stated that you refuse to accept any outcome but the one favouring the candidate you support.

But I'll try again, and this time I suggest you employ all of your 7th grade reading skills.
"Since the election is over and nothing can be changed as far as poll watcher, cameras, and machines go, what of people would have to be conducting the investigation (Party affiliation, social status, education) and what kind of evidence would they be required to present for you to acknowledge the election as being legitimate(Finding no evidence of significant election fraud, finding no significant evidence of ballot tampering, finding no evidence of electronic malfeasance), and on what scale(having tested every ballot cast in the election, having tested every ballot cast in swing states, having tested 100 ballot from X state, having tested 1000 ballots from X state, and so on and so forth)"

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

This year, we had a lot of last-minute rule changes due to covid, to say nothing of 5 years of anti-Trump propaganda, antifa and BLM riots that made everyone think that Republicans were nazis and deserved to be squashed by any means necessary.

So that meant that when someone's mask slipped below their nose, or if they broke the 6-foot rule, republicans (and republicans only) were immediately ejected from the tabulation rooms to cheers and applause, as multiple affidavits attest. That meant that observers had to stand in the corner of the room behind barriers so that they couldn't see anything. That meant that observers have to sit six feet away, behind a plastic shield, so that they could not properly observe the ballots.

That meant we had an influx of mail-in ballots that benefited one party over another. We had unsupervised drop-boxes so that nobody could tell if they were being stuffed.

This year was very different.



Again, transparency would help with this. Letting observers actually do their jobs so they don't have these complaints would eliminate every concern but the Dominion vote-switching theory.



1. Poll watchers allowed to do their jobs
2. Cameras in every tabulation room so that any accusation can be easily verified.
3. All technology involved (tabulation machines) should be made and controlled by the federal government. No more hiding behind "private company, proprietary software" stuff. Any code used should be open-source.

That's all I can think of right now.

33 days to go.

 

[Houseman]

"Since the election is over and nothing can be changed as far as poll watcher, cameras, and machines go, what of people would have to be conducting the investigation (Party affiliation, social status, education) and what kind of evidence would they be required to present for you to acknowledge the election as being legitimate(Finding no evidence of significant election fraud, finding no significant evidence of ballot tampering, finding no evidence of electronic malfeasance), and on what scale(having tested every ballot cast in the election, having tested every ballot cast in swing states, having tested 100 ballot from X state, having tested 1000 ballots from X state, and so on and so forth)"

If you had all of my 3 criteria, then you wouldn't need anything else changed. That amount of front-end security and transparency would be sufficient.

But if we're just discussing the audits and what I would like to see, then I would like to see state-wide forensic signature audits, like what they're doing in Georgia, in every closely contested state with lots of mail-in ballots, where both democrats and republicans (and independents) are allowed to work and observe without being hindered. Social status and education of these workers are irrelevant.

I'd like to see Dominion machines (at least a few) forensically audited (which is being done), and then if they do find anything outside of tolerances, as has already been found by existing independent audits, it is acted upon.

 

[Trunkage]

If you had all of my 3 criteria, then you wouldn't need anything else changed. That amount of front-end security and transparency would be sufficient.

But if we're just discussing the audits and what I would like to see, then I would like to see state-wide forensic signature audits, like what they're doing in Georgia, in every closely contested state with lots of mail-in ballots, where both democrats and republicans (and independents) are allowed to work and observe without being hindered. Social status and education of these workers are irrelevant.

I'd like to see Dominion machines (at least a few) forensically audited (which is being done), and then if they do find anything outside of tolerances, as has already been found by existing independent audits, it is acted upon.

Can you add something in there about being able to count mail ins before the election? Half the problem was some states counting them at certain times, giving false sense of results

 

[Houseman]

Can you add something in there about being able to count mail ins before the election? Half the problem was some states counting them at certain times, giving false sense of results

I dunno, counting ballots at different times might influence people's behavior when it comes to election day. For example "oh no, we're losing, quick, get to the polls!" or "we're winning, we can just rest on our laurels, we don't have to go out and vote today"

But yeah, it would cancel out the concerns of vote spikes and printed ballots coming in at midnight

 

[Trunkage]

I dunno, counting ballots at different times might influence people's behavior when it comes to election day. For example "oh no, we're losing, quick, get to the polls!" or "we're winning, we can just rest on our laurels, we don't have to go out and vote today"

But yeah, it would cancel out the concerns of vote spikes and printed ballots coming in at midnight

I’d be fine with the results not being released until Election Day but being able to start counting earlier

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Tell us what standards the election, those involved, and any investigations, would have to meet in order to for you to accept the outcome.